Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi all,

I've been reading some works by John Turner and Tuomas Rasimus, who theorize that 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.' These books are fascinating, analyzing which themes of the texts they believe came from which of these three groups.

However, one topic I have not been able to find in these works is where the story of the angel Sophia creating the demiurge may have originated. The authors point out trends (such as Ophite Sophia being a powerful god-like being, and the Barbeloite Sophia being a lower more guilty being), but unless I've skipped over it, I haven't found any discussions on which camp the story of Sophia may have originated from.

I don't know if there IS a consensus, though I'm new to reading such academic material and it's fully possible I just haven't found anything discussing this yet.

TLDR - did the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge come from the Sethites, Ophites, or Barbeloites initially?

Thank you!

Locating and dating Sethites, Ophites, or Barbeloites would answer your question most precisely.

Perhaps of interest, my earlier post "The Pauline Abortion as Hermetic/Gnostic Trope" here.

I've posted a few thoughts on the Sethians of the Sethrum, here and here (for example.) So IMO, they were a regional Judaic people resident in the Eastern Delta -- rather than merely a literary fiction.

Edit:
Although we haven't much to go on, someone posted &deleted a suggestion towards Philo Judaeus. His De Opificio Mundi, 26.146 references the Logos and Sophia as joint creators of humans, where Sophia makes Woman. Philo is arguing a point, so there was already a well-established Sophia tradition (of who knows how many interpretations) c.30 AD. And that Sophia tradition was several generations old, if I have understood Goodenough correctly: beginning c.150 BC?

So when & where exactly does the tradition of the Abortion God, specifically (e.g. Ialdabaoth), appear? I suppose Philo’s disgust w/ unnamed ‘radical allegorists’ is germane to this dissident mythos. He doesn’t name his philosophical adversaries, nor does he specify their topics, but they’re just beyond the spotlight of his ire.

I believe Jewish Gnosticism begins before 100 BC, but that period may have been a folkloric stage without proper writings. Speculative!

JustSomeRandomGuy wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 3:54 pm TLDR - did the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge come from the Sethites, Ophites, or Barbeloites initially?

Thank you!

Originally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato which were preserved by the apostolic succession within the academy of Plato. The authors of books like the Secret Book of John in the Nag Hammadi Library combined and acclimatized the Platonic accounts with the (Christian) biblical accounts. The question is when.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 3:06 pmOriginally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato which were preserved by the apostolic succession within the academy of Plato. The authors of books like the Secret Book of John in the Nag Hammadi Library combined and acclimatized the Platonic accounts with the (Christian) biblical accounts. The question is when.

"Originally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato" Citation please: Book and Verse.

wiki tells us (consensus accepts) that the Platonic Academy was destroyed by the Roman dictator Sulla in 86 BC. Logically, you would date 'canonical books' of the Sophia-Ialdabaoth mythos to c.200-100 BC: that may be correct or close, but evidence is wanting. What can we reasonably infer otherwise, abit more conservatively?

When: Against Heresies dates to c.175 AD
, and since the 'Apocryphon of John' was well-known, the Christianized mythos -- given the slow circulation of most literature -- therefore appeared at least 60-80 years before AH. (There is nothing to support the assumption it was a new or recent work in 175 AD, otherwise.) The underlying mythos looks and sounds pre-Christian -- pre-Pauline in fact: that pushes the known mythos back to before 60 AD. For an original literature, again -60 years: so, first appearing before c.5 BC? I can accept a beginning of the Sophia-Ialdabaoth mythos c.50-5 BC is entirely plausible, but Where, by Whom?

Furthermore, that Egyptian Judaism and a large Jewish population disappeared (w/several pogroms, unspecified oppression) in those few decades around the time Sethianism apparently exploded looks quite telling to me. Perhaps the Spanish Converso phenomenon of 1492-1522 may be suggestive? A million people didn't just evaporate into thin air from Egypt soil, either. The picture is still murky, but something happened: Sethianism became a literary trend (if not vibrant movement) at the moment Judaism declined. Perhaps they were known as Meristae?

By Whom/Where: Although this cultic material was presumably used by existent sects (if heresiologists should care) and collected by various mantic specialists (since some 'library' evidence survives), we have no way of knowing how popular or extensive their practices were in fact. Because such works were later deliberately and systematically destroyed -- anything mentioning Sophia-Ialdabaoth was pitched in the Xian book-fires --the lacuna or burn-zone in our 1st & 2nd C. data is quite large. However, there's ample evidence in so many historical sources that 'Gnostics' originated from 'Egypt' (and nowhere else) -- 'Sethians' were quasi-Jewish/heterodox Judeo-Egyptians from the Sethrum/Siriad, who formed age-old network(s) of itinerant preachers migrating through Alexandria to the Diaspora outside Egypt.

The simplest explanation is that Sethian mythos recorded in adapted, Xianized 2nd C literature originates in these scattered Judeo-Hermetic communities 100 BC-100 AD. (By contrast, any Conspiracy theory of the existence of Gnostic scriptorums churning out heretical literature just to make Xianity look bad is patently absurd, bonkers, laughable.) The modern fiction premise isnt germane at all; folkloric material was older, not newer; books were sensibly important high-value commodities; cultic books were tools employed by mantic professionals who served communities in very real, cultic milieus: 1st and 2nd C. Ophites, Barbeloites, etc. somewhere in the Levant.

No evidence supports the idea that the NHL Sophia-Ialdabaoth mythos first appeared in Athens (i.e. at the Platonic Academy) c.100 BC, anyway.

billd89 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:19 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 3:06 pmOriginally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato which were preserved by the apostolic succession within the academy of Plato. The authors of books like the Secret Book of John in the Nag Hammadi Library combined and acclimatized the Platonic accounts with the (Christian) biblical accounts. The question is when.

"Originally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato" Citation please: Book and Verse.

Plato, as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus (28a ff.)

wiki tells us (consensus accepts) that the Platonic Academy was destroyed by the Roman dictator Sulla in 86 BC.

A Neo-Platonist philosophy was revived in the 3rd century under Plotinus who is regarded alongside Plato and Aristotle as one of the three greatest philosophers from antiquity. This 3rd century revival of Platonism actually received imperial sponsorship through the emperor Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus. Porphyry published the philosophical literature attributed to Plotinus.

When the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens was closed by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE, Platonism ceased to be a living philosophy. But before that it was alive and well under the neo-Platonists.

Most scholars acknowledge the presence of Neo-Platonic influence in at least some of the tracts within the NHL. See: Possible Historical Allusions in the Nag Hammadi Library
viewtopic.php?p=144361#p144361

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 7:35 pm

billd89 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:19 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 3:06 pmOriginally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato which were preserved by the apostolic succession within the academy of Plato. ....

"Originally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato" Citation please: Book and Verse.

Plato, as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus (28a ff.)

No, that's disingenuous. You claimed the Story of Sophia AND the Creation of the Demiurge came from Plato directly. That's wrong. Timaeus speaking about a Demiurge (another Demiurge, apparently) is not what you claimed firstly.

Rather, nothing supports the idea any Sophia/Ialdabaoth story "came out a canonical book by Plato." See John Douglas Turner Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition [2001], p.49.

I question his characterization of "parody" or "creative misprision" but agree it's Platonistically derivative.

Long past Plato's day, at any rate, but also before and independent of Plotinus, who was a librarian copist and too late anyway.
Plotinus (i.e. his writings) established no heretical communities w/ gnostic literatures -- that's simply bollocks.

billd89 wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:44 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 7:35 pm

billd89 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:19 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 3:06 pmOriginally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato which were preserved by the apostolic succession within the academy of Plato. ....

"Originally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato" Citation please: Book and Verse.

Plato, as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus (28a ff.)

No, that's disingenuous. You claimed the Story of Sophia AND the Creation of the Demiurge came from Plato directly. That's wrong. Timaeus speaking about a Demiurge (another Demiurge, apparently) is not what you claimed firstly.

The claim was that the "STORIES" in the NHL about Sophia and the Demiurge (and other Platonic concepts) were originally sourced from Plato. Sophia (wisdom) is featured in Plato's Republic with the "Philo-Sophia" Kings and an extract of Plato's Republic is actually found in the NHL at NHC 6.5

Rather, nothing supports the idea any Sophia/Ialdabaoth story "came out a canonical book by Plato."

These concepts /entities (Sophia, Demiurge) which originated in Platonic philosophy were utilised by the authors of the stories that we find in the NHL.

See John Douglas Turner Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition [2001], p.49.

See also:

GNOSTICISM AND PLATONISM
THE PLATONIZING SETHIAN TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI
IN THEIR RELATION TO LATER PLATONIC LITERATURE
by
JOHN D. TURNER
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
pages 425-459 in Gnosticism and Neoplatonism
(Ed. R. T. Wallis and J. Bregman. Studies in Neoplatonism 6. Albany: SUNY Press, 1992)
https://web.archive.org/web/20070622200 ... iadaft.htm

Don't be too shocked but this article makes references to Plotinus

I question his characterization of "parody" or "creative misprision" but agree it's Platonistically derivative.

Of course it is and that was the point.

Long past Plato's day, at any rate, but also before and independent of Plotinus, who was a librarian copist and too late anyway.
Plotinus (i.e. his writings) established no heretical communities w/ gnostic literatures -- that's simply bollocks.

In addition to Turner's references to Plotinus in the above there is good evidence that a number of Sethian tracts within the NHL make use of the literature of Porphyry who is even later than Plotinus.

For example see:

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


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} :

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.

billd89 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:19 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 3:06 pmOriginally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato which were preserved by the apostolic succession within the academy of Plato. The authors of books like the Secret Book of John in the Nag Hammadi Library combined and acclimatized the Platonic accounts with the (Christian) biblical accounts. The question is when.

"Originally the story of Sophia and the creation of the demiurge came from Plato and the canonical books of Plato" Citation please: Book and Verse.

wiki tells us (consensus accepts) that the Platonic Academy was destroyed by the Roman dictator Sulla in 86 BC. Logically, you would date 'canonical books' of the Sophia-Ialdabaoth mythos to c.200-100 BC: that may be correct or close, but evidence is wanting. What can we reasonably infer otherwise, abit more conservatively?

When: Against Heresies dates to c.175 AD
, and since the 'Apocryphon of John' was well-known, the Christianized mythos -- given the slow circulation of most literature -- therefore appeared at least 60-80 years before AH. (There is nothing to support the assumption it was a new or recent work in 175 AD, otherwise.) The underlying mythos looks and sounds pre-Christian -- pre-Pauline in fact: that pushes the known mythos back to before 60 AD. For an original literature, again -60 years: so, first appearing before c.5 BC? I can accept a beginning of the Sophia-Ialdabaoth mythos c.50-5 BC is entirely plausible, but Where, by Whom?

Furthermore, that Egyptian Judaism and a large Jewish population disappeared (w/several pogroms, unspecified oppression) in those few decades around the time Sethianism apparently exploded looks quite telling to me. Perhaps the Spanish Converso phenomenon of 1492-1522 may be suggestive? A million people didn't just evaporate into thin air from Egypt soil, either. The picture is still murky, but something happened: Sethianism became a literary trend (if not vibrant movement) at the moment Judaism declined. Perhaps they were known as Meristae?

By Whom/Where: Although this cultic material was presumably used by existent sects (if heresiologists should care) and collected by various mantic specialists (since some 'library' evidence survives), we have no way of knowing how popular or extensive their practices were in fact. Because such works were later deliberately and systematically destroyed -- anything mentioning Sophia-Ialdabaoth was pitched in the Xian book-fires --the lacuna or burn-zone in our 1st & 2nd C. data is quite large. However, there's ample evidence in so many historical sources that 'Gnostics' originated from 'Egypt' (and nowhere else) -- 'Sethians' were quasi-Jewish/heterodox Judeo-Egyptians from the Sethrum/Siriad, who formed age-old network(s) of itinerant preachers migrating through Alexandria to the Diaspora outside Egypt.

The simplest explanation is that Sethian mythos recorded in adapted, Xianized 2nd C literature originates in these scattered Judeo-Hermetic communities 100 BC-100 AD. (By contrast, any Conspiracy theory of the existence of Gnostic scriptorums churning out heretical literature just to make Xianity look bad is patently absurd, bonkers, laughable.) The modern fiction premise isnt germane at all; folkloric material was older, not newer; books were sensibly important high-value commodities; cultic books were tools employed by mantic professionals who served communities in very real, cultic milieus: 1st and 2nd C. Ophites, Barbeloites, etc. somewhere in the Levant.

No evidence supports the idea that the NHL Sophia-Ialdabaoth mythos first appeared in Athens (i.e. at the Platonic Academy) c.100 BC, anyway.

Wow. This is really fascinating stuff. Thank you for the information. I don't know much about the dating and historicity of many texts so this was a great overview.

So while we might have a ballpark "when" of when the Sophia-Yaldabaoth myth arose, I take it we don't really have a "who" or "where" it emerged from, in terms of the various gnostic camps? I know various groups have different outlooks on the Sophia myth (Ophites saw her as lofty or even godlike, Barbeloites saw her as a lower created being who required redemption) but I'm really interested in which version of the myth came first. Did the Barbs take an ophite myth and make her lower, or did the ophites take the Barbeloite myth and make her higher, or did it come from somewhere different altogether?

there is a mytho-historic element possible
if "Sophia" represents the church then her "falling" results in what is effectively orthodoxy and its harsh/severe deity
in this reading the myth can only have originated after orthodoxy got going
after all, the aeons for the valentinians are modelled after the apostles and disciples etc
so the sophia myth is just a parsing of the present reality to explain to new gnostics how come the church down the road doesn't like them and where they came from. the myth never existed prior to some sort of split so we are late to the party and merely viewing the discarded beer cans and smashed up bathroom