The Sethian School of 'Gnostic' Thought

[billd89]

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.'

Re: "Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus"

I am curious how many serious scholars accept this: that Y-M-Y is a) one character and b) the person Jesus Christ. This conclusion is treated very hypothetically in almost every citation I've just read (not a rigorous sample) in the three (3) Sethian works.

1) Apocalypse of Adam .............................................................................. Date c.25? -125 AD

James Charlesworth writes: "The Apocalypse of Adam, which is extant in Coptic and is one of the Nag Hammadi Codices ... While there is general agreement that the work is non-Christian and dates either from the first or second century, there is considerable debate over A. Böhlig's suggestion that the original is a pre-Christian product of a Syrian-Palestinian baptist sect (no. 528).

Sethians outside of 'Egypt' (in Syria) would fit Philo's Therapeutae 'who were in all countries' and Josephus speaks of the known and ancient cult more broadly than if it were merely an Egyptian phenomenon. If the core-material of Apocalypse of Adam is truly devoid of Jesus-Xian elements and from someplace w/ a Jewish Baptist tradition, then a date like c.45-65 AD in the Sethrum is not an impossible origin.

"Micheu and Michar and Mnesinous" are three named ex- or Bad Sethians; conversely, there are three named 'Good Sethians' the "imperishable illuminators" (who are of The Living Water) in the plural: Yesseus, Mazareus, Yessedekeus. If not angels, I would read these as three (3) as the good teachers, following a severe (recent?) schism.

"The twelfth kingdom says of him that {Seth] came from two illuminators. He was nourished there. He received glory and power. And thus he came to the Water." Perhaps "Yesseus, Mazareus, Yessedekeus" which constitute the Living Water are two predecessors plus Seth (w/ a new name)? Random musings on the names: Ἰεσσαιος is Jesse; is Μάζαρος an Iranic Median name? Yessedekeus = Ἰησσαισηδηκος; Yishai-zedek 'I-Am-Possessed-of-Righteousness'? (To me, this vaguely suggests or echoes the theme of Genesis 14:18, 'King' Melchizedek and the bread offering.)

1) Ἰεσσαιος is 'The Gift' (Kingship?) ................................................ (Father; Power)
2) Ἰησσαισηδηκος is 'I-Am-Possessed-of-Righteousness' ......................... (Son; Glory)
3) Μάζαρος ... ? (Seth become smthg else: the Barley-Cake Sacrifice??) ..... (Bloodless Offering; Nourished/Fulfilled)
4) -- Initiated --

To read more into 'the Angels' names', by my own (hermetic/gnostic) interpretation I perceive 'Four Steps' at each stage (their appearance at this penultimate stage; they are named at the end) : 1) the Gift is Bestowed, 2) you are Glorified 3) you become/make a Sacrifice of Self, and 4) you are immersed/initiated i.e. join the Holy Order (i.e. Heavenly/Eternal Living Water) -- this repeats, 13x. I would further hypothecate this simple was the original 'Four Step' paradigm from an older period. fwiw, I've pointed out other examples of the 'Four Step' Program, previously.

(This is a fairly hardcore Jewish Apocalyptic; it lacks more pronounced mid-2nd C. AD 'Classical Gnostic' features, therefore it is older.)

2) Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit/'Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians' ................... Date c.125-175 AD
Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians) is Egyptian. From wiki (I am lazy), "it is far more likely that the name is based on connections made between Seth of the Old Testament and Set, the ancient Egyptian god of violence, chaos, and storms. This Gospel differs from the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Truth in that it is not from a Valentinian perspective and instead focuses on a viewpoint rooted in Sethianism." The Jesus bits may be late addition, re-validation upon an older cult's myth (text); Late Sethian, but w/ an underlying cult record that was Christianized in the 3rd C.? The ONE (1) "attendant called Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus" looks like a conflation (to me.) But by adding Jesus' brother, this account seems to borrow an alternate version with the three Baddies "Micheus and Michar and Mnesinous" and some new-alternative details (compiled eclectica) which may be late addition.

3) Zostrianos ........................................................................................ Date c.175? -225 AD
The conflated "immortal spirit" again (not 3 Blessed Ones) and the three Baddies are also not excommunicated, but their names are different: Gamaliel and Strempsouchos, Akramas and Loel, and Mnesinous. (To me, 'new & more complex' shows this work is the latest.)

Among these three exemplars, ApAdam seems the oldest. The other two versions conflate the three blessed teachers into one (the indivisible Living Water), which some (few?) scholars further insist must be a three-named Jesus Christ (I'm not seeing that, sorry). Weird, incoherent extra material always looks 'Later' to me; that is just my bias. I hope someone's AI will soon provide better insights to dating these three texts.

I still wonder if the varied heretics' names suggest where they came from; the (older) blessed ones, ditto.

Side-note on the Trismegistos Text:
Unfortunately, TM 26562, p.amst.1.36 isn't relevant to Sethians. Syrion is a leader of some village in the Setheroite nome of Egypt (from a village called Τανουπις = Tanoupis in the Syriad).

[MrMacSon]

Re: "Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus"

I am curious how many serious scholars accept this ...

Yes, it needs more elaboration by Litwa* or commentary by others

Although I don't think his proposition is that

that Y-M-Y is a) one character and b) the person Jesus Christ

* I found in his Posthuman Transformation In Ancient Mediterranean Thought: Becoming Angels And Demons, in Chapter 8, 'The Angelification of Zostrianos' -

"two references to Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus clandestinely refer to Jesus of Nazareth.12 The cryptic language was necessary owing to the narrative setting, which portrayed Zostrianos as a prophet who lived centuries before Jesus."

12 Zostrianos 47.5-6, 57.5-6

and, in his Found Christianities:

Y_M_Y_Found_Christianities.PNG (96.77 KiB) Viewed 1663 times

64 cf. Isaiah 11:1; Gosp. Eg. III,2 64.10-11


Wikipedia has

In Sethian Gnostic texts, Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus is the personification of the Living Water. He is mentioned in the Nag Hammadi tractates of the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, Zostrianos, and Apocalypse of Adam.[1]

The etymology of the name is as follows.[1]

• Yesseus from Jesus
• Mazareus from Nazarene (Greek: nazōraios)
• Yessedekeus from "the righteous" (Greek: ho dikaios)

[1] Meyer, Marvin (2007). The Nag Hammadi scriptures,a, b New York: HarperOne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesseus_M ... essedekeus

a wrt the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit

It appears that the baptism may have involved a fivefold immersion during which the baptizand uttered a fivefold prayer to Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus,the living water (as “child of the child”).

"There appeared to them
"the great attendant Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus, the living water ... [and many others] ..."

Baptismal_Hymn.PNG (85.48 KiB) Viewed 1656 times

83 Possibly, “You are alpha (four times), omega (four times).”

The supralinears over E and O are interesting


b wrt Zostrianos

7. The Self-Generated Aeons, the aeons presided over by Autogenes, where Zostrianos is baptized five times in the name of Autogenes (which may reflect the Sethian baptismal rite of the Five Seals). They contain the vast majority of the divine beings traditionally associated with the Sethian baptismal rite: the Living Water (Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus), the baptizers Micheus and Michar (and Mnesinous), the purifier Barpharanges, and Seldao, Elenos, and Zogenethlos. In addition to these, the Self-Generated Aeons also contain the Four Luminaries; Sophia; Mirothea, the consort of Autogenes and mother of the archetypal Adam, Pigeradamas; Prophania, the mother of the heavenly Seth and of the Four Luminaries; and Plesithea, mother of the seed of Seth, called “the angels.” Souls that reside in the Self-Generated Aeons are “perfect individuals” who possess “an intelligent, ineffable rational expression (Logos) of the truth” as well as self-generated power and eternal life.

[billd89]

Stepping aside from the Y-M-Y conjecture (which I will respond to later, in another Reply), the broader context also interests me:

1) There's certainly evidence that Sethians are 'Sons of God' (though not exclusively, i.e. as strictly co-equal categories).
2) Philo Judaeus knows personally & positively discusses the 'SoG' Allegorist cult (w/ "ancient records"), repeatedly.
3) Philo J. coincidentally defends the cryptic 'Therapeutae', who are also termed 'SoG' (but given a Mosaic flair).
4) Philo J. never refers to "Sethians" by name (as Josephus does), yet he must know this ancient Judeo-Egyptian group.

It logically follows that (some) Sethians are either identical to Philo's Therapeutae or easily numbered among them. Much of Philo's writing can be seen as an effort to persuade other Allegorists (some Sethian?), veering radically, to be more conservative and literalist to the Law.

IF this is basically correct, then 'Apocalypse of Adam' does look like a fairly straight-forward Therapeut work, providing fascinating details of religious activity within the cult - or perhaps, initiation proscribed to one synagogue of the cult? - in Philo's lifetime or soon after. We can imagine how more 'orthodox' Jews (those pious to the Jerusalem Temple strictures) might be leery/bothered/offended by this occult mysticism, yet it's unclear how heretical 'Apocalypse of Adam' would have been within Diaspora Judaism. I presume there were a variety of Judaic cults, but -- given human nature -- I have some difficulty imagining how varied sectarian groups might co-exist peacefully at the Therapeuts' colony c.15 AD.

After all this: it seems impossible that Y-M-Y should be a secret name for 'Jesus of Nazareth'. (I will assume John 1:45 c.70 AD as the earliest use of that name.) I would not gamble ApAdam was written between 33 - 70 AD w/ Saviour Jesus, otherwise.

[billd89]

Although I don't think his proposition is that

that Y-M-Y is a) one character and b) the person Jesus Christ

I don't follow/understand you. I said 'a and b', you said "I don't think his proposition is 'a & b'". Then you show Litwa actually said "two references to Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus clandestinely refer to Jesus of Nazareth" (a & b) and again: "the living water was identified with Jesus, invoked under a mystical name, 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' (apparently meaning "Jesus of Nazareth")..." (a & b)

You've shown that Litwa says 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' is a) one character and b) the person 'Jesus Christ' (the Deity).

The 'Living Water' is supposedly the Name of Jesus Christ, the personification/evocation of the deity ("the great attendant" in Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit). In Gnostic terms as I understand, 'Jesus' can be:

3) Deity, as in Divine Ousia, 'Living Water' or 'God' = Jesus Christ.
2) Divinized Man, as in Jesus-the-Therapeut, Aletheian Anthropos type. (Intermediate Stage: irrelevant, here.)
1) Man, the mortal vessel, etc. = Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't know Coptic, but I accept the scholars' judgment the Coptic version of ApAdam "is likely a translation from Greek." The correct Greek translation of "Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus" is what's needed here.

Ἰεσσαιος is 'Jesse', according to Josephus. That transliterates Iessaeos/Iessaios. Iessaeos = Yesseus.

Is that not so? Iessaeos certainly isn't a translation of "Jesus." But there's a known confusion here: the Jesseans of Epiphanius. I confess, these 'Jesseans' have long had me stumped - Epiphanius (c.378 AD) identifies the "Jessaens" as Therapeutae. Modern scholars call that an Error. However, IF a) Sethians = Therapeutae, and b) Epiphanius knew of their prayers to 'Yesseus-m-Y', then his conflation makes perfect sense: it is correct, in part. (I still don't agree Yesseus = Jesus, that either the Therapeut-Sethians or either [Therapeutae OR Sethians] were 'the First Jesus Christians', etc., but there may be something here anyway.)

See Charles Burlingame Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred [1908], p.510:

THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS WERE ESSENES - THE EVIDENCE

"What evidence have you that the followers of Jesus were Essenes?"

We reply, the testimony of Epiphanius:
"We should give the reason why those who gave to Christ his name were, before they took the name of Christians, called Jessenes; (Greek, Iessaioi.)

“I will remind you, it was because Jesse was the father of David, and they were therefore named from Jesse, or they obtained the name of Jessenes (Iessaioi) from Jesus Christ our Lord, being perfected in doctrine by Jesus, whose disciples they were; or else, finally, from the signification of the name by which our Lord was called.

"Jesus, in the Hebrew, signifies a healer, or physician. However that may be, this is the name by which they were known before they were called Christians.”—[Epiph. Hæres. xxix. 4.]

The word here used, Iessaios, is slightly different from that used by Philo, which is Essaios (Essene). Josephus, writing of the Essenes, has sometimes Essaios and sometimes Essenos.

Dr. Lightfoot says of this passage in Epiphanius, “From the connection the same sect seems to be meant.” There is no doubt of it whatever; since in the same connection Epiphanius refers to what Philo had said about the same people.

Apologies for my atrocious GoogleTrans. of F. Öhler's Panaria eorumque anacephalaeosis Vol.2, Pt.2 [1861],p.48

δι' ἣν αἰτίαν Ἰεσσαῖοι ἐκαλοῦντο {called Iessaioi}: Epiphanius thinks that Christians were formerly called Yessaeos, from Jesse the progenitor of David, or from Jesus, which in Hebrew means θεραπευττὴν {=Therapeut}, or σωτῆρα {=Savior}. In which it is wont to be more vehemently debated by some, yet almost heretics, whose intolerable arrogance, whether they blame them unjustly, or wrongly, accuse them, is the most vain and comical shamelessness. […]

Eusebius believed that these last Christians were 1. Hist. 11. C. 40., and the same opinion was held by Jerome and the other fathers, which Epiphanius followed. But he adds this one thing by conjecture, that those Yessaeos were named after Jesse, the father of David. The last thing I think is less likely. For we do not, I think, ever read the name of the Yessaeans attributed to Christians, and it is certain that they were called Essaeos, not Yessaeos by Philo. Certainly, if the Essaeorum were ever called Christians, he will do much to assert that accepted and ancient belief, which he determined that Christians had been arrested by Philo in the name of the Essenes. And this could certainly have been done, so that before the rise of the Christian religion, the Essenes flourished in Egypt by these customs and customs, which Philo preaches in the former book. In those times, when the discipline of the Essenes was in great harmony, they were called Essenes by the Alexandrian Greeks. For whom they both saw, then, indeed, all the Jews, and the Essenes, who embraced that common way of life, and embraced it remote from all luxury and ambition; For even a long time after, all Christians were named Jews by the Greeks and Romans, and were regarded as Jews; so that it would not be absurd for those Philonians to be Essaeos (i.e. Christians.)

Litwa grasps there's a problem; he has missed the solution. See David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, A Survey [1993], p.329:

One detail of Epiphanius’ account is most peculiar and deserves further mention. How can the Bishop say that Philo’s book on the Therapeutae was entitled ‘On the Iessaioi’? The obvious hypothesis is that he has coalesced Philo’s accounts of the Therapeutae and the Essenes. But how would he have known about the latter group? Eusebius nowhere mentions the Essenes in connection with the Therapeutae. It is true that he cites Philo’s long description of the Essenes in PE 8.11-12, but they are specifically described as ‘Jewish philosophers’. An intriguing fact is that Philo’s treatise on the Therapeutae begins with the words Ἐσσαίων πέρι διαλεχθείς (i.e. the subject discussed in the lost antecedent book), and that these words enter into the title in the Old Latin version (Philonis Iudaei liber de statu Essaeorum...). 80 But if this had influenced Epiphanius, we would have to conclude that he had read Philo’s account in the original. Kinzig argues that the title must have been corrupt in his examplar of the Eusebian source. But it is hard to see how this could have happened, since by Eusebius’ time the other part of the work had apparently been lost.81 Moreover, Pritz rightly reminds us that he calls his group not Essaioi but lessaioi, so that the solution Iessaioi = Therapeutai-Essaioi is arguably too simple.82 The wily bishop leaves us guessing.

80. See text at C-W 6.xviii and the comments at Schurer (1973-87) 2.596-597.
81. Kinzig (1991) 47 n. 23. Cohn at C-W 6.ix notes the parallel with the Latin translation,
but is unable to explain the coincidence.
82. Pritz (1988) 2.4 But according to Kinzig lot. cit. the same confusion occurs in Nilus.

The 'Therapeutae' (that was never their name; Philo merely categorized the type/bios) were actually Sethians with this queer prayer to a deity of the Living Water, whose Great Name is 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus'. From his sources (lost), Epiphanius correctly understood the Yessaeans/ Iessaioi were the same as the Alexandrian Therapeutae. (Iessaioi were, in any case, long extinct.) The Sethians, however, had flourished everywhere (in the Diaspora) but disappeared by his day (c.275 AD), although he suspected he may have met some in Egypt (c.335 AD). Epiphanius fails to connect Sethians/Iessaioi as synonyms, but the subject is awkward for the Church Father. If Christians first came from the Sethians, who came after the Cainites, Christianity was a bastard Jewish heresy. Then again, beyond the unspeakable admission, he may have encountered so many quasi-Xian grouplings he was simply baffled by all the variants.

Well, that's just my two cents )

[mlinssen]

Although I don't think his proposition is that

that Y-M-Y is a) one character and b) the person Jesus Christ

I don't follow/understand you. I said 'a and b', you said "I don't think his proposition is 'a & b'". Then you show Litwa said "two references to Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus clandestinely refer to Jesus of Nazareth" (a & b) and again, "the living water was identified with Jesus, invoked under a mystical name, 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' (apparently meaning "Jesus of Nazareth")..." (a & b)

You've shown that Litwa says 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' is a) one character and b) the person 'Jesus Christ' (the Deity).

In Gnostic terms as I understand, Jesus can be:

3) Deity, as in Divine Ousia, 'Living Water' or 'God' = Jesus Christ.
2) Divinized Man, as in Jesus-the-Therapeut, Aletheian Anthropos type. (Intermediate Stage: irrelevant, here.)
1) Man, the mortal vessel, etc. = Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't know Coptic, but I accept the scholars' judgment the Coptic version of ApAdam "is likely a translation from Greek." The correct Greek translation of "Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus" is what's needed here.

Ἰεσσαιος is 'Jesse', according to Josephus. That transliterates Iessaeos/Iessaios. Iessaeos = Yesseus.

Is that not so? Iessaeos certainly isn't a translation of "Jesus." But there's a known confusion here: the Jesseans of Epiphanius. I confess, these 'Jesseans' have long had me stumped - Epiphanius (c.378 AD) identifies the "Jessaens" as Therapeutae. Modern scholars call that an Error. However, IF a) Sethians = Therapeutae, and b) Epiphanius knew of their prayers to 'Yesseus-m-Y', then his conflation makes perfect sense: it is correct, in part. (I still don't agree Yesseus = Jesus, that either the Therapeut-Sethians or either [Therapeutae OR Sethians] were 'the First Jesus Christians', etc., but there may be something here anyway.)

See Charles Burlingame Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred [1908], p.510:

THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS WERE ESSENES - THE EVIDENCE

"What evidence have you that the followers of Jesus were Essenes?"

We reply, the testimony of Epiphanius:
"We should give the reason why those who gave to Christ his name were, before they took the name of Christians, called Jessenes; (Greek, Iessaioi.)

“I will remind you, it was because Jesse was the father of David, and they were therefore named from Jesse, or they obtained the name of Jessenes (Iessaioi) from Jesus Christ our Lord, being perfected in doctrine by Jesus, whose disciples they were; or else, finally, from the signification of the name by which our Lord was called.

"Jesus, in the Hebrew, signifies a healer, or physician. However that may be, this is the name by which they were known before they were called Christians.”—[Epiph. Hæres. xxix. 4.]

The word here used, Iessaios, is slightly different from that used by Philo, which is Essaios (Essene). Josephus, writing of the Essenes, has sometimes Essaios and sometimes Essenos.

Dr. Lightfoot says of this passage in Epiphanius, “From the connection the same sect seems to be meant.” There is no doubt of it whatever; since in the same connection Epiphanius refers to what Philo had said about the same people.

Apologies for my atrocious GoogleTrans. of F. Öhler's Panaria eorumque anacephalaeosis Vol.2, Pt.2 [1861],p.48

δι' ἣν αἰτίαν Ἰεσσαῖοι ἐκαλοῦντο {called Iessaioi}: Epiphanius thinks that Christians were formerly called Yessaeos, from Jesse the progenitor of David, or from Jesus, which in Hebrew means θεραπευττὴν {=Therapeut}, or σωτῆρα {=Savior}. In which it is wont to be more vehemently debated by some, yet almost heretics, whose intolerable arrogance, whether they blame them unjustly, or wrongly, accuse them, is the most vain and comical shamelessness. […]

Eusebius believed that these last Christians were 1. Hist. 11. C. 40., and the same opinion was held by Jerome and the other fathers, which Epiphanius followed. But he adds this one thing by conjecture, that those Yessaeos were named after Jesse, the father of David. The last thing I think is less likely. For we do not, I think, ever read the name of the Yessaeans attributed to Christians, and it is certain that they were called Essaeos, not Yessaeos by Philo. Certainly, if the Essaeorum were ever called Christians, he will do much to assert that accepted and ancient belief, which he determined that Christians had been arrested by Philo in the name of the Essenes. And this could certainly have been done, so that before the rise of the Christian religion, the Essenes flourished in Egypt by these customs and customs, which Philo preaches in the former book. In those times, when the discipline of the Essenes was in great harmony, they were called Essenes by the Alexandrian Greeks. For whom they both saw, then, indeed, all the Jews, and the Essenes, who embraced that common way of life, and embraced it remote from all luxury and ambition; For even a long time after, all Christians were named Jews by the Greeks and Romans, and were regarded as Jews; so that it would not be absurd for those Philonians to be Essaeos (i.e. Christians.)

Jesseus / Jessedekeus appears in NHL Codex III, IV, V, VI - and I encountered it just in passing

A screenshot of one of those:

JesseusJessesekeus.jpg (99.82 KiB) Viewed 1565 times

[billd89]

Re: Iessaioi-Jessaeans and the 'Nazareth Thesis

Yes: Jesus is ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ and ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲟⲥ /ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲩⲥ (iesseos/iesseus) is quite different.

ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲁ ⲙⲁⲍⲁⲣⲉⲁ ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲇⲉⲕⲉⲁ
(iessea mazarea iessedekea)
ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲩ ⲙⲁⲍⲁⲣⲉⲩ ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲇⲉⲕⲉⲩ
(iesseu mazareu iessedekeu)
ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲟⲥ ⲙⲁⲥⲁⲣⲉⲟⲥ ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲇⲉⲕⲉⲟⲥ
(iesseos masareos iessedekeos) .... Ἰεσσέος ? Ἰεσσεος ?
ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲩⲥ ⲙⲁⲍⲁⲣⲉⲩⲥ ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲇⲉⲕⲉⲩⲥ
(iesseus mazareus iessedekeus) .... Ἰεσσεύς ? Ἰεσσευς ?

See Frank R. Zindler’s “Cognitive Dissonance: the Ehrman-Zindler Correspondence” p.22:

In my opinion (and also in the opinion of William Benjamin Smith {1850-1934}, who also had the nom-de-plume of ‘Criticus’), the Hebrew antecedent {for ‘Nazara’ and ‘Nazaret(h)} is the word ‘netser’ -- meaning ‘sprout, shoot,’ or ‘branch.’ It is found most prominently in Isaiah 11:1: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a BRANCH shall grow out of his roots.” As you know, this verse was popular at Qumran. You may not know, however, that according to Epiphanius, before Christians were called Christianoi, they were called Iessaioi - Jessaeans. I think this clearly relates the word ‘netser’ to early Christianity.

The relationship between "netser" and both "NazOraios" and "NazarEnos" seems very strong. […] Jesus of Nazareth would originally have been ‘Jesus the Branch’ - as in ‘Branch Son-of-David-ian.’ (Actually, ‘Branch Son-of-Jesse-an’!)

I still cannot fathom who the God of the Living Water is. But we may discern something, the name of the Founder of this 'Sethian' cult, that long-gone Therapeut (Attendant) to whom they pray for Perfectioning.

Yesseus, Host of the Righteous Jessaean.
Yesseus, Sacrifice of the Righteous Jessaean.
Yesseus, Branch of the Righteous Jessaean.
...

Again, recall Philo's defense (c.25 AD) of a notorious 'Son of God'/Sethian? initiate who had boldly chosen the Name 'Arise!' (Anatole/Zemach = Branch) at De Confusione Linguarum, 62-3.


Now I'm curious about the 'Living Water' deity, if this Sethian concept originates in the Sethrum.

Osiris/Adonis is the Living Water, and the Egyptian Cult of the Young God (Horus Kasios c.200 BC) was situated 25 km from Chaldaean Daphnae (Local God: Eshmoun, c.550 BC), where Eshmun = Adon, and Eshmun = Horus Kasios.

William R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites [1907], p.177 references 'living waters' having a sanctity among N. Semitic peoples, and the general custom of throwing the Ἄδώνιδος κῆποι {figurines of Adonis} into springs (Zenobius 1.49: pots "are carried out together with the dead god and thrown into springs"), although we are only interested in Judeo-Egyptian Adonia: perhaps Isaiah17:10 and Ezekiel 8:17?



Plutarch’s Moralia, Vol. V, 36, 365B: “Not only the Nile, but every form of moisture they call simply the effusion of Osiris; and in their holy rites the water jar in honor of the god heads the procession.” and 38, 366A: “The Egyptians simply give the name of Osiris to the whole source and faculty creative of moisture, believing this to be the cause of generation and the substance of life-producing seed… As the Egyptians regard the Nile as the effusion of Osiris, so they hold and believe the earth to be the body of Isis, not all of it, but so much of it as the Nile covers, fertilizing it and uniting with it. From this union they make Horus to be born.”

The Young God may suggest Horus Apollo Harpocrates (on a lotus) on amulets; see Christopher A. Faraone, The Transformation of Greek Amulets in Roman Imperial Times [2018], p.156:

These Roman period gems are most frequently darker jaspers or hematites inscribed with names like Abrasax and Iaô that call attention to Harpocrates' identity as a Young and All-Powerful Solar God.54 And indeed, a 3rd C. CE magical recipe advises that, while performing a dangerous erotic spell, “you should have an iron ring with yourself on which has been engraved Harpocrates sitting on a lotus and his name is Abrasax.”55 Elsewhere we find pleas that the seated Harpocrates be well disposed to the owner of the gem, as on a late Hellenistic cameo in Vienna of Harpocrates as a plump baby with his finger in his mouth (Figure 6.4).56 There are no obvious signs, at first glance, that this gem is an amulet, but on the reverse, we find the traditionally schematic image of the god on the lotus and a prayer in Greek, very similar to that inscribed on the backs of the Heliorus amulets: "Great Horus Apollo Harpocrates, be very merciful to the wearer!"

[MrMacSon]

Although I don't think his proposition is that

that Y-M-Y is a) one character and b) the person Jesus Christ

I don't follow/understand you. I said 'a and b', you said "I don't think his proposition is 'a & b'". Then you show Litwa actually said "two references to Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus clandestinely refer to Jesus of Nazareth" (a & b) and again: "the living water was identified with Jesus, invoked under a mystical name, 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' (apparently meaning "Jesus of Nazareth")..." (a & b)

You've shown that Litwa says 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus' is a) one character and b) the person 'Jesus Christ' (the Deity).

The 'Living Water' is supposedly the Name of Jesus Christ ...

I made that post then, after half an hour or so, decided to look, and then added

* I found in his Posthuman Transformation In Ancient Mediterranean Thought: Becoming Angels And Demons, in Chapter 8, 'The Angelification of Zostrianos' -

"two references to Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus clandestinely refer to Jesus of Nazareth.12 The cryptic language was necessary owing to the narrative setting, which portrayed Zostrianos as a prophet who lived centuries before Jesus."

12 Zostrianos 47.5-6, 57.5-6

and, in his Found Christianities:

I didn't revise what I originally posted, and guess I should have said, 'edited to add' ...

But, iiuc, even then it's all still very murky wrt to why these associations were made, when they were made, and what they might mean


Re

The 'Living Water' is supposedly the Name of Jesus Christ, the personification/evocation of the deity ("the great attendant" in Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit)

I don't think that's likely the case. It may be the other way round ie. it would seem more likely that, at some point, the Name of Jesus Christ got attached to a/the concept of the 'Living Water'

In Gnostic terms as I understand, 'Jesus' can be:

3) Deity, as in Divine Ousia, 'Living Water' or 'God' = Jesus Christ.
2) Divinized Man, as in Jesus-the-Therapeut, Aletheian Anthropos type. (Intermediate Stage: irrelevant, here.)
1) Man, the mortal vessel, etc. = Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't think it's helpful to try to generalise "in Gnostic terms" and I don't think those numbered points are helpful, either.

Ἰεσσαιος is 'Jesse', according to Josephus. That transliterates Iessaeos/Iessaios. Iessaeos = Yesseus.

Is that not so? Iessaeos certainly isn't a translation of "Jesus." But there's a known confusion here: the Jesseans of Epiphanius. I confess, these 'Jesseans' have long had me stumped - Epiphanius (c.378 AD) identifies the "Jessaens" as Therapeutae. Modern scholars call that an Error. However, IF a) Sethians = Therapeutae, and b) Epiphanius knew of their prayers to 'Yesseus-m-Y', then his conflation makes perfect sense: it is correct, in part. (I still don't agree Yesseus = Jesus, that either the Therapeut-Sethians or either [Therapeutae OR Sethians] were 'the First Jesus Christians', etc., but there may be something here anyway.)

Iesous is the Anglicized version of the Greek transliteration/translation of Y'shua or Y'hoshua (the name from the Hebrew Bible we know in English as Joshua)

Iesous became Iesus in Latin and, later, Jesus in English (after 'J' entered the English alphabet in the 17th century)

[MrMacSon]

Now I'm curious about the 'Living Water' deity, if this Sethian concept originates in the Sethrum.

Osiris/Adonis is the Living Water, and the Egyptian Cult of the Young God (Horus Kasios c.200 BC) was situated 25 km from Chaldaean Daphnae (Local God: Eshmoun, c.550 BC), where Eshmun = Adon, and Eshmun = Horus Kasios.

William R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites [1907], p.177 references 'living waters' having a sanctity among N. Semitic peoples, and the general custom of throwing the Ἄδώνιδος κῆποι {figurines of Adonis} into springs (Zenobius 1.49: pots "are carried out together with the dead god and thrown into springs"), although we are only interested in Judeo-Egyptian Adonia: perhaps Isaiah17:10 and Ezekiel 8:17?


Plutarch’s Moralia, Vol. V, 36, 365B: “Not only the Nile, but every form of moisture they call simply the effusion of Osiris; and in their holy rites the water jar in honor of the god heads the procession.” and 38, 366A: “The Egyptians simply give the name of Osiris to the whole source and faculty creative of moisture, believing this to be the cause of generation and the substance of life-producing seed… As the Egyptians regard the Nile as the effusion of Osiris, so they hold and believe the earth to be the body of Isis, not all of it, but so much of it as the Nile covers, fertilizing it and uniting with it. From this union they make Horus to be born.”

Yes, the life-giving Nile comes to mind (and apparently the Nile was worshipped as a god)

As does the Serapium of the cult of Serapis, with a bath in an inner sanctuary (I wonder if running water was a feature)

[billd89]

Jesus is ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ ; ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲟⲥ /ⲓⲉⲥⲥⲉⲩⲥ (Yesseos/Yesseus) is quite different.

If one person (i.e. not some formulaic triad), then 'Yesseus, Sacrifice of the Righteous Jessaean' probably identifies an ancient Founder, a Divinized Therapeut, from at least several generations before any 'Jesus of Nazareth' ever/supposedly walked the earth.

If ApAdam were recent to Epiphanius, 'Jessaeans' wouldn't be mysterious AND their writings would be Christianized. Jessaeans never needed "secret names for Jesus Of Nazareth" etc. That's ludicrous.

This isn't JC.

I haven't ruled out possibilities that Jesus, and/or his earliest followers had some connection to (descent from) Sethians/ Therapeutae. But that guess looks merely beguiling, not likely.

[Leucius Charinus]

We may not know when the author originally wrote Zostrianos (NHC VIII,1) but we do know that the editor of the NHL (and thus Zostrianos) flourished in the mid 4th century and thus after the political establishment of the Nicene church orthodoxy.

We don't know from who, when or where the FIRST 'Zostrianos' story emerged. Nor how many variants circulated. Nor how close Porphyry (c.270 AD) was to the origin of the myth ("recent" in Antiquity might be 100-150 years.) We don't know which version of 'Zostrianos' he read. But, within reason, for Zostrianos to be famous 'his' works must have circulated +70-100 yrs.

Late-Dater Turner says Zostrianos is from ~225 AD; I'd suppose 175-200 AD. I think the mythic character is older, tho; before 125 AD and 'Zostrianos' saw many emendations thereafter.

This material comes out of a culture that was established and dynamic; but it wasnt fighting a catholic/orthodox Church. Its older than the earliest heresiologists, by +100 years.

WIKI is often a good starting point. Here is some stuff on the Chaldean Oracles:

No original documents containing the Oracles have survived to the present day, and what we know of the text has been reconstructed from fragments and quotes by later neoplatonist philosophers, as well as Christian philosophers who were influenced by Platonist thought. Neoplatonists including Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus wrote extensive commentaries on the Oracles which are now lost.

///


The 4th-century emperor Julian suggests in his Hymn to the Magna Mater that he was an initiate of the God of the Seven Rays, and was an adept of its teachings. When Christian Church Fathers or other Late Antiquity writers credit "the Chaldeans", they are probably referring to this tradition.

///

Importance of the Oracles

The Chaldean Oracles were considered to be a central text by many of the later neo-platonist philosophers, nearly equal in importance to Plato's Timaeus. This has led some scholars, beginning with F. Cumont, to declare the Oracles "The Bible of the Neoplatonists".[3]

[my formatting]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Oracles

If one accepts (as I do) that Zostrianos is influenced by Platonic texts that make use of the Chaldaean Oracles then a date much before 225 CE is unlikely.

It seems that the Chaldean Oracles were part of a textual tradition which was flourishing in the eastern empire c.325 CE, specifically at Alexandria and specifically at the Academy of Plato. Through Plotinus the School had received imperial sponsorship. $$$$

What evidence precludes a terminus ad quem for Zostrianus being written in response to the Christian Bible after 325 CE? If the Oracles were "The Bible of the Neoplatonists" why would it not be naturally expected that they would compose something like Zostrianus as a literary response to the LXX which was packaged with the NT Bible? These people were the generation who witnessed the appearance of the Constantine NT Bible codex as a political instrument in the eastern empire.

Would we expect these Platonist philosophers and writers to remain silent? If not, did they compose a version of Zostrianus as a retort to the Emperor's New Books? To be read in the theaters of Alexandria as "resistance literature". After the imperial stamp-down this text and many others were smuggled out of Alexandria and taken 400 miles up the Nile. Here they were preserved in the Coptic NHL by other elements of the (pagan) resistance at a Pachomian monastic settlement. To which thousands (tens of thousands in some sources) flocked. A mass movement away from the Christianisation of the cities