Sethian Gnosticism

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Asimis

I am not too familiar with this branch of Gnosticism, maybe someone may want to add or correct the information below. I am just trying to boot conversation and to heat up the forum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sethian Gnostics

Perhaps the most important of the Gnostic sects are the Sethians.* The term "Sethian Gnostics" is a modern one; and some scholars have even suggested this is a totally artificial classification.* But it is apparent that a number of Nag Hammadi texts do share a great deal in common as regards their cosmology and terminology, so for the sake of convenience we can refer to these as "Sethian".

The Sethians are so-called because, naturally, they* hold the biblical character of Seth up as a savior-figure.* So Seth is to the non-Christian Gnostics what Christ is to the Christians.

According to Professor John D. Turner of the University of Nebraska, Sethianism passed through five phases, which can be listed as follows (John D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History, p.56 (in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (ed. C.W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986), 55-86.):

1 During the first century before to the first century of the Commen Era, Sethianism was a non-Christian baptismal sect that considered itself possessing the primordial wisdom revealed to the still human Adam and Seth, and also expecting also a messianic visitation of Seth.* This was typical of the Messianic mind-set of the time; Christianity itself began as precisely such a Messianic religion, centred around Jesus.* In the case of the Sethians, here we would have the Source material for later writings: Sophia myth, exegesis on Genesis, and the baptisimal rite.* I would also include here the *Apocalypse of Adam, a very early work that would seem to be transitional between Jewish and Gnostic apocalyptic, in its original form, and the above quoted fragment from The Testimony of Truth.

2 During the later first to second century C.E. Sethianism became gradually Christianised through contact with Christian baptisimal groups, and identified Seth or Adam with their pre-existent Christ.* Here then Seth and Adam are transformed from human to supernatural beings.* Representative texts include the Apocalypse of Adam in its completed form, the Apocryphon of John, the Hypostasis of the Archons, *The Thought of Norea , and *Trimorphic Protennoia.

3 During the later second century C.E. Sethianism became increasingly estranged from Christianity, and its own doctrines become more orthodox and codified.* Typical here is the *The Gospel of the Egyptians, perhaps the "classic" Sethian work, and a secondarily Sethianised Jewish piece called Melchezidec (named after the mythical high priest).

4 By the third century C.E. Sethianism had rejected by the* Christian Church, while meanwhile becoming increasingly attracted to the individualistic mystical practices of Platonism, and also adopting Platonic (Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic) metaphysical and numerological ideas.* This is the period of the Church heresiological accounts, and Sethian texts like *Allogenes, Zostrianos, and *The Three Steles of Seth, which incorporate various Neopythagorean and Neoplatonic ideas.

5 By the later third century C.E. Sethianism had become estranged from Platonism (Neoplatonism), and was becoming increasingly fragmented into various derivative and sectarian gnostic groups.* Texts from this period of decline include *Marsanes and the *Bruce Codex.

In the later (i.e. 200 C.E. on; stages (4) and (5) above) Sethian writings there is the tendency towards monism, a somewhat more positive attitude toward the material world, and, in Zostrianos and Marsanes, a more elaborate and sophisticated account of the various planes of* existence, including the sub-spiritual (sub-pleromatic) realms [Ibid, pp.83-5].


Taken from: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/Sethian.htm

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

I have been meaning to get back to this subject for a long time! This is a particularly bad time for me to attempt critical analysis.... since I am posting in a state of exhaustion right now *lol*.

Ok, so here is my take.......

Dr Turner is almost a classic source, so don't take this as a dislike of his work. In fact, it had been so long that I have read his work that I will not postulate whether the outline offered is an accurate representation or not. Instead, for the sake of conversation, I will assume it is and argue against it all the same.

I see fundemental flaws with Dr Turner's outlines on varios levels.

While it is true that the category of "Sethianism" is modern, just as is true with "Valentinianism" and even the prime destinction of "Gnosticism".... it is also probable that "Sethians" as an order, existed... from which we construct the category (at least we do have the mentioned by some of the heresiologists)

The primary flaw in Dr Turner's outline is that he equivocates (commits a major logical flaw) between the two destinctions. He offers "Sethiansim" as a movement that can be so directly outlined.... which is just not the case. To put this another way.... just because some literary device that can be dated to a specific era says one thing vs that of another era, it does absolutely NOTHING to imply how the movement may have evolved as a whole. In teh academic spectrum, this flaw is essentially unforgivable.

And yet, there are aspect that I agree with here. We have absolute proof that Gnostic orders were willing to mutate thier lingo to include other onterstandings. While I am against turning Gnosticism into a Jungian system.... fact is there does seem to be a willingness to understand similarities with other Gnostic systems, even other "Mystery" systems.

Still, I don't feel that the evidence implies Dr Turner's outline. I feel that from a logical stance he misimplies categorical destinctions here.

BUT... while the overall destinction of "Gnosticism" is not debatable here.... underlying aspects are... so I open this to public debate.... what do you all think?

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Frater Omicron

Greetings,

I noticed the Sethian post and found it most interesting, however my level of understanding of this material is lacking to a degree that replying to the post seemed derisive to the point.

I thought I might inquire after texts that may illuminate me on this subject, particularly the aspect which related to the Platonic mingling that was suggested.

If you can offer any titles that may be of help in this regard I would be grateful.

Frater Omicron

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Demetrios

[QUOTE=pmcv]
While I am against turning Gnosticism into a Jungian system.... fact is there does seem to be a willingness to understand similarities with other Gnostic systems, even other "Mystery" systems.
[/QUOTE]
What's your beef with Jung? Are you saying that Gnosticism is somehow incompatible with the Jungian theory of collective subconsciousness and that the theory is wrong, or just don't like some/most/any of the various systematizations of archetypes?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey, Demetrios

What's your beef with Jung? Are you saying that Gnosticism is somehow incompatible with the Jungian theory of collective subconsciousness and that the theory is wrong, or just don't like some/most/any of the various systematizations of archetypes?

No, no.... not so much a beef with Jung as an attempt to point out that Gnsoticism is not simply some early expression of Jungiansim as much as Jung MAY have had us believe. You know, many Thelemites.... Crowleyists.... would also tell us that Gnosticism is simply an early version of their beliefs... if you are going to express that here, you better be willing to demonstrate it.... in either case.

My point has nothing tot do with whether Jung or Crowley have validity in thier own right, but whether thier views are technically "Gnostic".

PMCV

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: die before death

So does the name of this type come from Seth/Typhon?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: pmcv

Hey Die Before Death....

NO, as you will see in Yazan's last post in the Hermetic thread on this forum, the Egyptian "Set" is NOT the same as the Gnostic "Seth". There is some debate about the etymology of the word, but there is no connection between the two outside that. Sethisanism is not the same as Setianism. And the second form is not a type of Gnosticism.

PMCV