Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gnosticism vs. Orthodoxy/ Sethians

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... that ... Hi, Betty. It s so good to see you. Thank you for your very thoughtful post. Speaking of food, I m slowly digesting your wonderful analysis in
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 7, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > i know i have leaned quite heavily upon Professor Turner's article,
      > but at the moment i have no other sources at hand, to draw from,
      that
      > goes to such lengths, in discussing Sethian Gnostian.
      > well, i'd like to comment more on the Platonic influences upon the
      > Sethians and Valentinians,and more of PMCV questions, but i have to
      > go eat dinner before i faint.
      >
      > very exciting discussion here!
      >
      > cheers everyone, betty


      Hi, Betty. It's so good to see you. Thank you for your very
      thoughtful post. Speaking of food, I'm slowly digesting your
      wonderful analysis in between holiday food preparations. I look
      forward to your future comments, too. I'll be back soon!

      Cari
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello pmcvflag ... Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the Sethians were not. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello pmcvflag

        On 12/10/04, you wrote:


        > I would like to see what people think of the mythological structure
        > itself. Are there reasons for the severe dramtic difference we see
        > between the Valentinian and Sethian outlines? I ahve often dealt
        > with this as a literary hermeneutic point, but I also brought up the
        > question as to just how literal vs literary this should be
        > understood. Why, then, with the Valentinian and Sethian cosmology
        > being essentially related, is the emphasis so strikingly different?

        Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the Sethians were
        not.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      • pmcvflag
        Hey Betty, well I guess I need to get over and read Turner s pages too. I know he has some books on the subject of the specific relationship between Platonism
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 9, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Betty, well I guess I need to get over and read Turner's pages
          too. I know he has some books on the subject of the specific
          relationship between Platonism and Sethiansim, perhaps I'll try to
          pick one of those up at some point.

          Unfortunately, some of the books I am more familiar with, such as
          Pearson's "Gnosticism, Judasim, and Egyptian Christianity" are not
          in print and quite hard to find I guess.

          It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
          postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
          believe.

          In looking at this part of Turner's outline....

          "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
          originated in the period 100-250 C.E. They seem to derive their
          content from five basic complexes of doctrines:(1)a fund of
          Hellenistic- Jewish speculation on the figure of Sophia, the divine
          wisdom;(2)midrashic interpretation of Genesis 1-6 together with
          assorted motifs from Jewish scripture and exegesis;(3)a doctine and
          practice of baptism;(4)the developing Christology of the early
          church; and(5)a religiously oriented Neopythagorean and Middle
          Platonic philosophical tradition of ontological and theological
          speculation."

          .... I was thinking that it would be interesting to deal a bit more
          specifically with the influences. While I don't think anyone would
          debate these influences (though other influences could possibly be
          added), I am wondering if there is any significance to the ordering.

          I found it interesting that the thing you point out as a difference
          in the notion of "Gnosis" between the Valentinians and the Sethians
          very directly implies that at least this one particular motif is
          more directly related to the Platonic schools on the Sethian side,
          and considering the continued degeneration of the Academies this
          alone could give us cause to speculate on what order those
          influences should be stated.

          To be honest though, I am not completely convinced that this
          destinction is necessarily accurate. Not to say I disagree either,
          but it does seem to be that while the Valentinian texts do seem to
          express the notion a bit more vaguely, they still attach it to the
          ritual system and the cosmology that is implied in the system. And
          remember, most of the Valentinian texts are also vague in dealing
          with the cosmology, but we know it was there all the same. In other
          words, I am not sure that this tendancy to be a bit less explicit
          may not have more implications concerning the textual purpose (and
          the "taste" of the sect) rather than the specifics of belief.

          Something that threw me a little, is the way Dr Turner mentions the
          Valentinian developement so obliquely that it almost seems to imply
          that these thoughts popped up on thier own in both sects. While he
          does mention sect interaction, I would wonder if he would list the
          same influences, in the same order, for both sects.

          One thought I have had is, the expression is Sethianism is so
          dramatic, and on the surface it is hard to see interaction between
          some of these Gnostic sects, as well as Neopythagorian and
          Hermeticism. When I look at the early Hermetic texts, I see
          something very easily in line with Valentinian thought.... the
          Demiurge is not evil, just a tool.... etc. Some of the
          Neopythagorian thought, on the other hand, seems to me to be more
          inline with the Sethians. Still, I can see the interacction between
          all of these groups as more intuitively obvious than the interaction
          between the Sethians and Valentinians. And yet it did seem to
          happen. SO, what does this imply?

          I would like to see what people think of the mythological structure
          itself. Are there reasons for the severe dramtic difference we see
          between the Valentinian and Sethian outlines? I ahve often dealt
          with this as a literary hermeneutic point, but I also brought up the
          question as to just how literal vs literary this should be
          understood. Why, then, with the Valentinian and Sethian cosmology
          being essentially related, is the emphasis so strikingly different?

          Thoughts?

          PMCV
        • lady_caritas
          ... times, ... first ... a ... suprise. ... period ... pricipally ... sense ... mentioned. ... adoption ... a ... the ... Betty, you speak of the idea of
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
            wrote:

            > now, if that isn't enough to make your head spin, much later in the
            > article the author is more specific in describing the contrast
            > between Christianity and Sethianism, then mentions just where
            > Valentinus is, in proximity to Christianity.
            >
            > "For Christianity, the period of Isreal was one only of preparation
            > for the advent of salvation in Christ, while for the Sethians,
            > salvation had been in principle already achieved in primordial
            times,
            > with the raising of Seth and his seed into the Aeons. Thus the
            first
            > and second descents of the redeemer had actually already performed
            > the fundamental work of salvation in primordial times and left
            > witnesses to it on inscribed steles and in books. The third descent
            > of the redeemer is therefore only to remind the earthly Sethians of
            > what had been accomplished for them in the past, and to grant them
            a
            > means of realizing this in the present through the baptismal ascent
            > ritual.
            > That this third descent of the redeemer is identified with the
            > preexistent Christ who brings salvation as gnosis rather that
            > salvation through his death on the cross should occasion no
            suprise.
            > There were tendencies toward such views in Johannine Christian
            > circles as well. One should bear in mind that also during this
            period
            > (140-160)Valentinus likewise developed the notion of a pneumatic
            > Christ coming to waken the sleeping spirit in humankind, a notion
            > which lies at the core of his system. Valentinus and his sucessors
            > made Christ the focus of their system and thus were allied
            pricipally
            > with Christianity.'rite Sethians, however, seemed to find their
            sense
            > of uniqueness in opposition to the church on grounds just
            mentioned.
            > Since various groups were not isolated from one another but freely
            > made use of texts and ideas borrowed from other groups, the
            adoption
            > of Christ into their system was only natural, but did not
            > fundamentally change its basically non-Christian nature and inner
            > cohesion."
            >
            > it's seems then, that fundementally, the Sethians and Valentinians
            > idea of gnosis would logically differ? for Valentinians, Gnosis is
            a
            > more vague notion of "knowledge" that one cultivates within, with
            the
            > potential of salvation. while the Sethians, salvation has already
            > occured in primordial times, and Gnosis is merely remembering one's
            > spiritual past, inferred by a Heavenly counterpart through the
            > practice of the baptismal ascent ritual.


            Betty, you speak of the "idea" of Gnosis. Ideas may have differed
            due to differing environments and cultural influences. There is
            certainly that element, and yet I feel that this mental aspect, the
            intellectual realization, was part of a larger common
            cognitional/pneumatic _experience_ (not just emotional or magical or
            mystical or rational) from whence came an abundance of differing
            expressions, which in themselves changed in the first few centuries
            as explained by John D. Turner in his article.

            I'm reminded of "An Interview with Gilles Quispel" by Christopher
            Farmer (p. 27-29) in the first issue _Gnosis Magazine_, (Fall/Winter
            1985).
            From the interview:
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Farmer: I liked what you once said in an article about the Nag
            Hammadi discovery, that whether or not these writings are true or not
            there is certainly a sincere and authentic expression being
            manifested in them.

            Quispel: Yes, and that's what Jung once said to me. He said, "I
            don't like the Neoplatonists, mainly because you don't find there so
            much an experience but more of a rationalization of the experience,
            but with the Gnostics you have the experience, and the proof that it
            is all personal experience is that these systems are so different
            from each other." I think that is a very valid observation from that
            old fox.
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Well, perhaps it is personal, but there is a cultural as well as a
            personality component that could very well affect individual likes,
            dislikes, and differences in general. I do agree with Jung's
            observation about "a sincere and authentic expression." This could
            very well stem from an origin of experience that transcends
            nature/nurture considerations. In spite of Jung's observation about
            different systems, the Neoplatonists and Valentinians and Sethians
            had plenty in common. Their griping at each other was often about
            emphasis and details. So human they were. The rationals didn't like
            all the ecstatic incantations of others, etc. Humans are so
            complex. That is why I appreciate what often seems like the
            ridiculous intricacy of Gnostic cosmologies. Some things these
            Gnostic groups did share were emanation systems from an unknown
            source and an interest in cosmogony.

            I think remembrance through an inner awakening was important for all
            Gnostics, whether with the help of one or three descents of a
            redeemer. As Mike pointed out, the Valentinians seemed to have a
            more direct connection with a burgeoning Christianity than others.
            Remembrance was the key, though, for Valentinians and Sethians
            alike,... awakening "the sleeping spirit in humankind."

            Regardless of when a salvation "in principle" had been achieved for
            these groups, the inner realization wasn't always considered apparent
            without the aid of ritual or an initiatory process, in some cases.
            Various rituals were used and sometimes were even discarded by
            various sects. I would imagine that Sethian and Valentinian groups
            were comprised of members at various stages in the process of Gnosis,
            just as we find today. Hence, the amount of emphasis on sacramental
            aspects would vary.

            IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis on
            a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to these
            groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying expressions,
            cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in attaining Gnosis.


            Cari
          • lady_caritas
            ... Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions that were written by
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              >
              > It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
              > postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
              > believe.
              >
              > In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
              >
              > "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
              > originated in the period 100-250 C.E.


              Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology
              and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions that
              were written by the end of the first century. I would copy and paste
              here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.

              He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in this
              whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
              origin?

              Cari
            • Mike Leavitt
              Hello lady_caritas ... I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV? Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello lady_caritas

                On 12/10/04, you wrote:

                >
                >
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                >>
                >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
                >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
                >> believe.
                >>
                >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
                >>
                >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
                >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
                >
                >
                > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology
                > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions
                > that were written by the end of the first century. I would copy and
                > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
                >
                > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in this
                > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
                > origin?
                >
                > Cari

                I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?

                Regards
                --
                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
              • Mike Leavitt
                Hello lady_caritas ... We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis. Regards -- Mike
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello lady_caritas

                  On 12/10/04, you wrote:

                  > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
                  > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                  > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                  > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in attaining
                  > Gnosis.

                  We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very
                  theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.

                  Regards
                  --
                  Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                • lady_caritas
                  ... attaining ... very ... Yes, Mike, and I don t know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                    > Hello lady_caritas
                    >
                    > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                    >
                    > > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
                    > > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                    > > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                    > > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                    attaining
                    > > Gnosis.
                    >
                    > We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                    very
                    > theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                    >
                    > Regards
                    > --
                    > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                    Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus
                    as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
                    philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
                    of Forms.
                    http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html


                    Cari
                  • lady_caritas
                    ... some ... Chronology ... and ... this ... Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in which I quoted from the preface of Turner s
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                      > Hello lady_caritas
                      >
                      > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                      wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
                      > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
                      some
                      > >> believe.
                      > >>
                      > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
                      > >>
                      > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
                      > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
                      Chronology
                      > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions
                      > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would copy
                      and
                      > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
                      > >
                      > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
                      this
                      > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
                      > > origin?
                      > >
                      > > Cari
                      >
                      > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
                      >
                      > Regards
                      > --
                      > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                      Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in
                      which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
                      "Sethianism as a non-Christian
                      baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
                      considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
                      revealed to Adam and Seth,..."

                      I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
                      around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.

                      Cari
                    • Mike Leavitt
                      Hello lady_caritas ... I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic too. I don t have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello lady_caritas

                        On 12/11/04, you wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                        >> Hello lady_caritas
                        >>
                        >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                        >>
                        >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
                        >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                        >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                        >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                        > attaining
                        >>> Gnosis.
                        >>
                        >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                        > very
                        >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                        >>
                        >> Regards
                        >> --
                        >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                        >
                        >
                        > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                        > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
                        > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
                        > of Forms.
                        > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html

                        I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic
                        too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I would
                        check.

                        Regards
                        --
                        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                      • lady_caritas
                        ... emphasis ... the ... contemplation ... theurgic ... would ... You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find this online:
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                          > Hello lady_caritas
                          >
                          > On 12/11/04, you wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                          wrote:
                          > >> Hello lady_caritas
                          > >>
                          > >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                          > >>
                          > >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
                          emphasis
                          > >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                          > >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                          > >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                          > > attaining
                          > >>> Gnosis.
                          > >>
                          > >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                          > > very
                          > >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                          > >>
                          > >> Regards
                          > >> --
                          > >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                          > > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
                          the
                          > > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
                          contemplation
                          > > of Forms.
                          > > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
                          >
                          > I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
                          theurgic
                          > too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                          would
                          > check.
                          >
                          > Regards
                          > --
                          > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                          You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
                          this online:
                          http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm


                          Cari
                        • Mike Leavitt
                          Hello lady_caritas ... This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit hard to read, I m afraid. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                          Message 12 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello lady_caritas

                            On 12/11/04, you wrote:

                            >
                            >
                            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                            >> Hello lady_caritas
                            >>
                            >> On 12/11/04, you wrote:
                            >>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                            > wrote:
                            >>>> Hello lady_caritas
                            >>>>
                            >>>> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                            >>>>
                            >>>> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
                            > emphasis
                            >> >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common
                            >> >> to these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                            >> >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                            >>> attaining
                            >>>>> Gnosis.
                            >> >>
                            >> >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                            >>> very
                            >>>> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                            >>>>
                            >>>> Regards
                            >>>> --
                            >>>> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                            >>> Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
                            > the
                            >>> philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
                            > contemplation
                            >>> of Forms.
                            >>> http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
                            >>
                            >> I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
                            > theurgic
                            >> too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                            > would
                            >> check.
                            >>
                            >> Regards
                            >> --
                            >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                            >
                            >
                            > You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
                            > this online:
                            > http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm

                            This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit
                            hard to read, I'm afraid.

                            Regards
                            --
                            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                          • pmcvflag
                            In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther, a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can t recall what evidence
                            Message 13 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther,
                              a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can't
                              recall what evidence he presents for that.... and I can't think of
                              any myself. I also was just noticing that Turner and Pearson seem to
                              have many parallel studies, such as the specific connection between
                              Gnosticism and Platonism. From what I am reading they seem very much
                              in agrement. Perhaps Turner is a good replacement (and maybe a bit
                              updated) for the fact that Pearson seems pretty hard to find. It
                              would be helpful to have more books on this perticular subject to be
                              able to recomend to people. Expect my review within a year ;) *lol*

                              PMCV

                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                              wrote:
                              > > Hello lady_caritas
                              > >
                              > > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                              > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > >>
                              > > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr
                              Turner
                              > > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
                              > some
                              > > >> believe.
                              > > >>
                              > > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
                              > > >>
                              > > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited
                              above
                              > > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
                              > Chronology
                              > > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian
                              compositions
                              > > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would
                              copy
                              > and
                              > > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
                              > > >
                              > > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
                              > this
                              > > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much
                              earlier
                              > > > origin?
                              > > >
                              > > > Cari
                              > >
                              > > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
                              > >
                              > > Regards
                              > > --
                              > > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                              >
                              >
                              > Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379)
                              in
                              > which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
                              > "Sethianism as a non-Christian
                              > baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
                              > considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
                              > revealed to Adam and Seth,..."
                              >
                              > I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
                              > around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.
                              >
                              > Cari
                            • pmcvflag
                              Hey Mike... ... Sethians were not.
                              Message 14 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hey Mike...

                                >>>"Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the
                                Sethians were not."<<<

                                Perhaps, but what about the synagogue? Also, I am not so sure that
                                the Christinized "Sethian" tracts were not originally used in the
                                church. On the other hand, they are hard to reconcile with what we
                                know of the earliest Christian texts. I think this question is very
                                difficult to be positive about, either way.

                                PMCV
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.