Re: Some more Essene Research FYI
- Hey Jana
>>>Hey, pmcv. Could you explain the difference for me? Do you meanhow the Sethians actually practised vs. doctrine?<<<
I didn't mean practice vs doctrine, but instead the name of a
particular sect vs a category that scholars have created that refers
to a number of related sects. If I remember correctly, it was
Schenke who first outlined these categories.
Here is the way it works; In spite of the fact that almost none of
our surviving "Gnostic" texts are attributable to a specific group
(but there are exceptions to that), it has been noticed for some
time that they tend to fit into two pretty obvious trends. These
trends closely resemble two particular sects described by people
like Irenaeus, so the names of those sects were picked to represent
the categories of liturature even though many of the books may not
have come from the actual sects.
If you look in our "links" section you will find two brief outlines
of what seperates these two categories, and if you set down with
nearly any Gnostic text without even having heard from scholars
which of the two forms it falls into I think you will find it starts
to jump out at you. Apoc of John, Allogenes, Judas, they all fit
this "Sethian" format. Philip, Tripartite Tractate, Gosp of Truth,
they all fit the Valentinian format.
Strictly speaking this was initially just intended to be textual
groupings, but you will hear people also using the categories to
group various sects together as well. Cainites, Sethians,
Archontics, Barbelo-Gnostics, and many of the other groups mentioned
by the heresiologists fit the "Sethian" format. Valentinians and
various offshoots fit the "Valentinian" format.
That is why it can sometimes be confusing if we are talking about
the church of Sethians, or the category of Sethians.
- --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I'm glad to hear that Layton didn't include TT *lol*. BTW, I justit
> thought I would also add an interesting note for the group (maybe
> will come up in the Essene conversation as well) that in additionto
> the sects you mention are attacked the treatment of John theBaptist
> is not very sympathetic either.Heh. Neither is the treatment of his mother, Elizabeth. The author
writes, "John was begotten by means of a womb worn with age."
> Less obvious, but possibly still significant....
> "It is through water and fire that the whole place is purified -
> visible by the visible, the hidden by the hidden. There are someone
> things hidden through those visible. There is water in water, there
> is fire in chrism."
> (side note.... considering the subject matter and the mention of
> of the rituals mentioned in other valentinian texts, along withThat's possible. Sure. Yet,... talking about "things hidden
> scribal errors elsewhere in Philip, one could reasonably wonder if
> the second use of the word "water" in this passage may not have
> originally been "baptism")
through those visible" preceding "water in water" compels me to draw
an immediate association of hidden water through visible water. I
don't know if that is any less meaningful than spelling it out.
Since "chrism" is mentioned, it even might be expected to think of
the water in terms of baptism. Chrism and water are mentioned as
*both* being necessary for baptism elsewhere in GPh:
"We are reborn by the holy spirit. And we are born by the anointed
(Christ) through two things. We are anointed by the spirit. When we
were born we were joined. No one can see himself in the water or in
a mirror without light. Nor, again, can you see by the light without
water or a mirror. For this reason it is necessary to baptize with
two things light and water. And light mean chrism."