Which gnostic tradition did the story of Sophia creating the demiurge come from - Ophite, Sethite, or Barbeloite?

[andrewcriddle]

Well, someone is Wrong on the Internet, and another is wrong in print:

The authors of these texts have also borrowed material from other writings of Porphyry and, as a consequence, these texts display a wide range of Porphyrian themes, doctrines, and terminology. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate this Porphyrian influence and to suggest the circumstances in which these texts may have been written.

Rubbish. Abandon all wishful or warped thinking. Pay attention to dates. Be logical.

Egyptian-raised Plotinus (c.250 AD) copied and responded to past generations of Alexandrian writers and established Alexandrian theory: his formation was in 235 AD. Later copyists like Porphyry (c.285 AD) also used much older works (c.100 AD and earlier). Scribes in our Late Antiquity (c.350-500 AD) most probably augmented both their works w/ late ideas, additionally. So it went.

Regarding the intellectual formation of Plotinus in Alexandria, Age 31 in 235 AD, we go back a generation to his conservative teacher Ammonius Saccas (c.175–243 AD). wiki tells us {Edit: adding dates} :

According to Porphyry, the parents of Ammonius were Christians {c.145 AD}, but upon learning Greek philosophy {c.200 AD}, Ammonius rejected his parents' religion {c.100-175 AD} for paganism {pre-100 AD}.

We are told that Plotinus' teacher Ammonius abandoned the Christianity of his day: of the Early 2nd C! Implicitly, Ammonius rejected Christian Gnosticism likewise: another dogma of the the Early 2nd C. There is absolutely no reason to suppose Judeo-Gnosticism was called "paganism" by Porphyry; he means 'the old faith of Alexandria.' But here's what's curious: according to Porphyry, contemporary Christianity/Christian Gnosticism was already traditional then (c.150 AD). That means Christianity should have been at least two or three generations old in Alexandria in 200 AD, present since at least 130 AD. Unless his grandparents had converted (c.75 AD!), Christianity should have been a relatively new, radical? cult in Alexandria (c.160 AD). Therefore, Ammonius was repudiating his parents' convert religion: the eternal conservative reaction. By this, he would 'return to' ideologies of previous generations (i.e. pre-100 AD), to learn, then follow & teach that older doctrine: Platonism (c.200 BC-200 AD). Naturally, Alexandrian (retro-)Platonism was also "pagan"...of the old guard Serapis cult? However, this older Alexandrian philosophy (already colored by Judeo-Hermeticism, perhaps) was also influencing both the newer (1st? -) 2nd C. Christianity AND older 1st Gnosticism then circulating and evolving in the Alexandrian milieu of Ammonius' boyhood. So it impacted his own teaching/writings (c.210 AD), those of his preservationist student Plotinus (c.240 AD) AND old Sethian works likewise. There's evident (c.1st C BC) Platonism in Philo's works (c.25 AD) also. No mystery here!

Obviously, Ammonius (c.240 AD) is not 'the source.' Equally sure, the writings of Numenius of Apamea (c.150 AD) are not 'the source.'

Plotinus (c.255 AD) is certainly not 'the source.' At Age 28 (c.232 AD), suffering an intellectual depression in the novelty-driven cosmopolis, he finally found -- or, discovered his affinity for -- another conservative reactionary, Ammonius Saccas. It's blazingly obvious: in his own writings, Plotinus rails against radical sectraians, novelists, philosophical innovators, and new ideas of his day. Rightly considered as a conservative librarian, his ideas look closer to a plagiarism of Platonism, c.100 AD: "Neo-Platonist" follower, indeed.

Porphyry, 'the source'? fuggedaboutit. Porphyry's contemporaries, the (last) scribal copyists of the surviving NHL (c.325 AD) used many-times re-copied older texts (from autographs, c.350-25 BC?). Both Egyptian copyists (of older, known, original Sethian gnostic works circulating in Egypt) in the 2nd C AD and Porphyry in 3rd C AD Rome therefore drew from common Egyptian sources of their own Antiquity. There's your muddle.

Just to clarify. We are talking specifically about the Platonizing Sethian texts like Zostrianos or Allogenes, not the version found in the Apocryphon of John which is earlier, maybe much earlier. The date of Zostrianos is controversial but is unlikely to be earlier than the pseudo-Chaldean oracles one of which is referenced in the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides which has similar philosophic ideas to the Platonizing Sethian texts. Now the pseudo-Chaldean oracles date from the reign of Marcus Aurelius so Zostrianos is later than that i.e around 200 CE at the earliest. Allogenes is probably later than Zostrianos .

Andrew Criddle

[billd89]

Just to clarify. We are talking specifically about the Platonizing Sethian texts like Zostrianos or Allogenes, not the version found in the Apocryphon of John which is earlier, maybe much earlier. The date of Zostrianos is controversial but is unlikely to be earlier than the pseudo-Chaldean oracles one of which is referenced in the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides which has similar philosophic ideas to the Platonizing Sethian texts. Now the pseudo-Chaldean oracles date from the reign of Marcus Aurelius so Zostrianos is later than that i.e around 200 CE at the earliest. Allogenes is probably later than Zostrianos .

Andrew Criddle

No, to correct, the OP said:

... popular gnostic texts, such as the Secret Book of John, were actually amalgamations by three different gnostic groups (ophite, sethite, and barbeloite) that eventually syncretized into what we call the 'sethian gnostics.'

The clear implication in the OP is that older, smaller sects have been synthesized into one later larger category. On origins, locating and dating Sethites, Ophites, or Barbeloites would answer the question most precisely. Because the extant literature is the 'ending' rather than the 'beginning.'

My Timeframe is also correct, because it's chrono-logical and Occam's Razor. In Antiquity, books circulated very slowly, over decades and even generations, influence was a slow-burn and not a 'radical revision, lately'. So the fundamental assumption any 3rd C. librarian could be the influence (ergo predecessor) of a mythos hundreds of years older is ... ahem ... utter bollocks.

Migrants into the Sethrum for +500 years had a cultural impact on the OT, Josephus c.90 AD wrote paragraphs on Sethians, the Early Church Fathers (c.140 AD) likewise knew them as largely defunct (has-beens, disappeared), and confirming archaeological evidence -- the NHL itself -- intuitively supports an even greater antiquity for folkloric Sethianism. Basically, we are referring to a poorly-recorded (and much despised) culture of Judeo-Egyptians originally resident on the Eastern Delta. Later, because of an existential crisis -- at time when (Judaean) Judaism in Egypt was repressed in 38 AD, 70 AD, 115 AD -- there was a renaissance of sorts, and a regional, indigenous, Semitic folk-mythos was repackaged, dressed up, Platonized, cosmopolitanized: on purpose. Obviously, the intellectual, philosophical literature which has come down to us is the last, late stage: analogous to standardized Greek myth.

Late Sethian Gnosticism (1st -2nd C. AD) is as much a reaction as proof to what happened. I certainly don't believe First C. Jews were entirely innocent of ethno-religious extremism themselves. In 38 AD, there was one inter-ethnic explosion and anti-Jewish pogrom, but longstanding, seething social ferment also led to a larger catastrophe 115 AD: boasted Biblical genocides of Others, revisited upon the Jews themselves?

No need to wonder how 'Sethian Gnosticism' became much more popular and darker in the mid-late 1st C. When you witnessed your parents get murdered by mobs in 38 AD, you joined a protected synagogue to save your own life: the Converso phenomenon is not unique, nor the first. Whereas ('Jewish') Gnosticsm was not originally so morbid, it definitely became diabolical for some reason(s), not difficult to surmise in light of the tragic history then unfolding. We are likewise reminded of another, more recent example.

Meanwhile, in Philo's day as throughout Antiquity, 'Therapeutae' (called whatever: 'Sethians'/'Chaldaeans'/'Samaritans', etc.), could enter Temples/shrines of Osiris, Serapis, Asklepios-Imouthes/Imhotep, Zeus Ammon, etc. to conduct their famed dream interpretations and psycho-spiritual healings. They must have been part of a larger heterodox Semitic sub-culture. In a time of persecutions, this 'Outsider status' naturally became a saving grace. Yet Philo (c.25 AD) informs us that "radical allegorizers" were already popular, so their syncretistic theosophical movement was not new, and this alternative must have worried Temple Judeans in his day too. Ergo: Jewish Gnosticism must originate in competing sects of the 1st BC or earlier (Josephus reminds us that Sethians were "ancient")... this has all been covered before. Locating and dating Sethites, Ophites, Barbeloites etc. will answer the question most precisely, YES.

The much re-copied, typically evolving literature (of an exploited bowdlerized Judeo-Egyptian mythos) dates to the Late 1st and Early 2nd C. Priority should be obvious; no, there was no 'Conspiracy' to create 'Sethianism' for scandal in the 4th C. Christian Church, either. Please.

Now the pseudo-Chaldean oracles date from the reign of Marcus Aurelius so Zostrianos is later than that i.e around 200 CE at the earliest. Allogenes is probably later than Zostrianos.

Forget "pseudo-", that's deliberately misleading. Chaldaean magic was definitely a thing, and more ancient than that (viz., 175 AD), the nominative 'Chaldaean' refers especially to Proto-Jewish Semites in Egypt c.500-150 BC, before they were properly called "Jews." Banish the word 'Sethian' from your lips? The Bible of Moses gets at least this much right: carefully (un)name your enemies, to strip them of power.

[andrewcriddle]

I think we have good reason to date the Chaldean (or pseudo-Chaldean) oracles to the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See Julian Theurgistes and the Rain Miracle

Andrew Criddle

[billd89]

The Chaldean Oracles (and its date) is utterly irrelevant to the OP, to the Sophia-Ialdaboath mythos, to Sethians (Sethites, Ophites, Barbeloites, etc.), the question of the OP, and so on.

Regarding the Chaldaeans (of Egypt) before 150 BC, there is an enormous amount of evidence here. The thesis that First C. 'Sethians' evolved out of a Egypto-Chaldaean foundation is fascinating, though unexplored, and definitely warrants deeper research by scholars.

3) De Abrahamo 8,11,17-9: Actualized Man {ἀλήθειαν ὄντος ἀνθρώπου} is derived from the Torah, by Metathesis ("translation").

De Abrahamo 8: Χαλδαῖοι γὰρ τὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἐνὼς καλοῦσιν, ὡς μόνου πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ὄντος ἀνθρώπου τοῦ τὰ ἀγαθὰ προσδοκῶντος καὶ ἐλπίσι χρησταῖς ἐφιδρυμένου• ἐξ οὗ δῆλον, ὅτι τὸν δύσελπιν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀλλ’ ἀνθρωποειδὲς ἡγεῖται θηρίον τὸ οἰκειότατον ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς, ἐλπίδα ἀφῃρημένον. 9: ὅθεν καὶ παγκάλως ὑμνῆσαι βουλόμενος τὸν εὔελπιν προειπών, ὅτι οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν ὅλων πατέρα καὶ ποιητήν (cf. Genesis 4:26), ἐπιλέγει• „αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων“ (Genesis 5:1), καίτοι πατέρων καὶ πάππων ἤδη γεγονότων• ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν ἀρχηγέτας τοῦ μικτοῦ γένους ὑπέλαβεν εἶναι, τουτονὶ δὲ τοῦ καθαρωτάτου καὶ διηθημένου, ὅπερ ὄντως ἐστὶ λογικόν.

De Abrahamo 8: “For the Chaldaeans call man ‘Enoch’, as if he were the only Actualized Man {ἀλήθειαν ὄντος ἀνθρώπου} who lived in expectation of good things and the exultation of opportunities, whence it is said of the hopeless (not Man but mere human: the animal in human-form) that which is most proper to Man’s Soul is absent: Hope. (9) Wherefore, and bringing forth most beautifully hymned optimism about prophetic foretelling, that {Enoch} had hoped in the All-Father and Creator {holōn patera and poiētēn} (cf. Genesis 4:26), the author adds, ‘This is the Bible of the Generation of Men’ {geneseōs anthrōpōn} (cf. Genesis 5:1) and of their fathers and forefathers of history. But though {the author} suffered them as founders of the mixed-race, Enos was of the purified {καθαρωτάτου} and separated {διηθημένου} - in fact, of the race which is truly rational. {γένους λογικῶν = Rational Race}.”

De Abrahamo 18: ἡ γάρ μετάθεσις τροπὴν ἐμφαίνει καὶ μεταβολήν• πρὸς δὲ τὸ βέλτιον ἡ μεταβολή, διότι προμηθείᾳ γίνεται θεοῦ• πᾶν γὰρ τὸ σὺν θεῷ καλὸν καὶ συμφέρον πάντως, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἄνευ θείας ἐπιφροσύνης ἀλυσιτελές. (19) εὖ δ’ εἴρηται τὸ „οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο“ ἐπὶ τοῦ μετατεθειμένου, τῷ τὸν ἀρχαῖον καὶ ἐπίληπτον ἀπαληλίφθαι βίον καὶ ἠφανίσθαι καὶ μηκέθ’ εὑρίσκεσθαι, καθάπερ εἰ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγένετο, ἡ τῷ τὸν μετατιθέμενον καὶ ἐν τῇ βελτίονι ταχθέντα τάξει δυσεύρετον εἶναι φύσει• πολύχουν μὲν γὰρ ἡ κακία, διὸ καὶ πολλοῖς γνώριμον, σπάνιον δ’ ἡ ἀρετή, ὡς μηδ’ ὑπ’ ὀλίγων καταλαμβάνεσθαι.

De Abrahamo 18: “For the transferral/transposition {Metathesis} implies a manifestation {emphainō} and transition; and the change is for improvement, because the provision is made by God: for everything with God is in every respect suitable, just as that unworthy of Divine Guidance {theias epiphrosynēs} is likewise detrimental. (19) Wherefore it is said, ‘he could not be found’ {Genesis 5:24} of him who was transported, either from the former reprehensible lifestyle being erased, made invisible and nowhere found (as if it had never existed from the beginning), or because the class transferred and improved is in Nature hard to find: for the Bad is prolific and known to many, but Virtue is rare, to be seized by a few.”

Analysis:
Although De Abrahamo 8,11,17-9 mentions the Aletheian Anthropos in conjunction with Enoch, Philo is notably hostile or dismissive to Chaldaean/Enochian? philosophy. If unavoidable, his discussion of Enoch seems merely approximate and will not, therefore, credit an Enochic origin for the A.A. concept. De Abrahamo 11 also refers to the ‘the Bible of the Generation of the Actualized Man’ {βίβλον γενέσεως τοῦ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀνθρώπου} and leads to a qualification of Actualization: 17-19, the necessity of being changed {μεταβάλλω} and fact of being transferred, taken, or moved into {μετατίθημι} a different class/order/state-of-being, which is wholly contingent on God-worthiness (hoping in the Two-Fold God, Father and Creator). The unworthy cannot and will not be changed.

The topic of Metathesis is well-attested; see esp. Epistle to the Hebrews 11:5-6.

I'm revising my translation above to this, a new version assisted by AI:

(8) For the Chaldaeans call man ‘Enoch’, as if he were the only Actualized Man {ἀλήθειαν ὄντος ἀνθρώπου} who lived in expectation of good things, firmly established in righteous optimism, whereas it is evident the Despairing (not True Man, but a mere human: beast in human-form) is deprived of Hope, that most intimate possession of the human soul.

(9) Therefore, and wishing to sing the highest praises of the Man of Good Hope, having previously mentioned that {Enoch} had hoped in the All-Father and Creator (cf. Genesis 4:26), the author adds, ‘This is the Bible of the Generation of Men’ (cf. Genesis 5:1) and of their fathers and forefathers of history. But though {the author} suffered them as founders of the mixed-race, Enoch was of the purified {καθαρωτάτου} and most refined {διηθημένου} Race - in fact, of that which is truly rational.”

Philo knew "Chaldeans" (=Sethians) with an Enochic interpretation of the OT. Their work purified and refined (Actualized) Man: the product was an A. A. What becomes his relation to the 'Beastly Man'? The Despairing (=Beastly) suffer Maladies of the Soul; they who lacks Hope in God(s) need to be purified and refined in some measure. Philo has described the Therapeutae as "soul-healers", and -- in so many examples, given - THEY are the A. A. Not mentioning the reviled "Sethians" by name, without admitting the (strangely Anonymous) Men of Lake Mareotis as Enochic sectarians (anathema!), Philo calls the A. A. "Chaldaeans" for that was how such (Jewish) mantic specialists were commonly known in Egypt. In Rome? Asaphim/Chartumim and their various, competing schools might still have been banned, censored or harassed c.25 AD.

The REAL and IMPORTANT questions are: How did A. A.'s practically and effectively heal? What was their Jacob's Ladder of Steps (viz., their psycho-spiritual modality)? Why did they equate Sobriety w/ their identity? Was Jesus a Sethian? &c. -- all focusing on the First Century -- ... (off-topic, digressive, whataboutery =) bullshit about the later "Chaldaean Oracles", not so much.

[billd89]