Clearly, the "Gnostics" used a Creation myth that has a relationship to the story of Genesis found in the Torah.
The question is: do all of the "Gnostic" myths derive from Genesis, or do they descend from a common ancestor with Genesis? In other words, is Genesis a variant of a common Creation myth that was shared by "Gnostics"?
What evidence would support the proposition that the Gnostics were not merely interpreting Genesis, but rather they were relying elements of a Creation story that Genesis was derived from?
As many scholars note, the Creation story in Genesis has many Babylonian parallels. Gmirkin argues that Genesis was influenced by the 3rd century BCE Babylonian writer Berossus, who provided a version of the Babylonian origin myths in Greek.
But regardless, Adam and Seth do not appear in the Babylonian tales. So while Genesis may have been influenced by the Babylonian stories, the Genesis accounts are not simply copies of the Babylonian stories.
So, might the "Gnostic" creation stories, as well as Enochic literature, derive from polytheistic Canaanite/Israelite traditions that were revised by the creator(s) of the Torah?
So do the Gnostic Creation stories and the Enochic literature reflect attempts to "correct" Genesis by re-introducing the Canaanite/Israelite myths from which Genesis was partly derived? Or, does Gnostic and Enochic literature derive directly from Genesis as merely a re-imagining of Genesis, without drawing on older related traditions?
In other words, did someone read Genesis and say, "Ah hah, look, God says, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' That must mean that there were actually other gods. I'm going to imagine the real account of those other gods!"
Or did people read Genesis and say, "No, that's not how it happened, according to the traditions of MY family, Yahweh was not actually the only god, there were others. The story in Genesis is a lie. The Jews claim that Yahweh was the only god, but we know from older stories that the Creator wasn't actually the first god! That's why he says, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.'"
Do Genesis and "Gnostic" creation accounts share a common origin?
Re: Genesis Cosmogony (Opinion)
Following Daniel Volter's study of all of the Egyptian myth elements combined in Exodus, I presume the same explanation for the composition of Genesis. This scribal process synthesized multiple sources/myths. After you have successfully peeled away & isolated the different elements, you can compare and hopefully find the ancestral lineages. Then admit: it's all an Alexandrian pastiche. To what purpose?
The strong correlation between Creation in Poimandres and Genesis leads me to believe the same Ur-Text was employed: the newer Jewish version was simplified. I presume a Hellenistic Ur-Myth (w/ whatever variations) was widely taught c.300 BC among elite philosophical literate circles; the later Torah version was sanitized, but imperfectly. But where did the Hellenistic Ur-Myth originate? Was it cobbled together by Alexandrian scribes out of many different folklores, or was there a First Teacher, a Jewish Homer? (Personally, I don't think it's "Egyptian," however. My hunch? Jewish scribes favored Chaldean stories, but deferred to their anti-Syrian Ptolemaic overlords. I've seen no proof it's Canaanite or Palestinian, either.)
Departing from conventional thinking regarding Matter, I think the Poimandres version is older and more complete/coherent. There's also a Serpent Cult at the root, or one root, which I suspect is North African and not Jewish-Semitic. The Serpent recommended fruits of the mandrake, not apple, for example.
I am interested to read others' opinions, 'where it comes from' ...
The strong correlation between Creation in Poimandres and Genesis leads me to believe the same Ur-Text was employed: the newer Jewish version was simplified. I presume a Hellenistic Ur-Myth (w/ whatever variations) was widely taught c.300 BC among elite philosophical literate circles; the later Torah version was sanitized, but imperfectly. But where did the Hellenistic Ur-Myth originate? Was it cobbled together by Alexandrian scribes out of many different folklores, or was there a First Teacher, a Jewish Homer? (Personally, I don't think it's "Egyptian," however. My hunch? Jewish scribes favored Chaldean stories, but deferred to their anti-Syrian Ptolemaic overlords. I've seen no proof it's Canaanite or Palestinian, either.)
Departing from conventional thinking regarding Matter, I think the Poimandres version is older and more complete/coherent. There's also a Serpent Cult at the root, or one root, which I suspect is North African and not Jewish-Semitic. The Serpent recommended fruits of the mandrake, not apple, for example.
I am interested to read others' opinions, 'where it comes from' ...
Re: Do Genesis and "Gnostic" creation accounts share a common origin?
I recently started looking into a comparison of what we might know about the Gnostic creation accounts and other creation accounts. I can't see much if any similarity between what we know about the 'basic' Gnostic creation accounts (eg. in the Secret Book of John) and Genesis (other than each has stages).
Preliminarily, I found references to and versions of the Greek creation accounts (below) and more superficial references to 'Roman creation accounts' which suggest the Romans mostly got theirs from the Greeks. I haven't yet looked more 'east' or into Egyptian creation accounts or myths.
See also https://www.theoi.com/articles/what-is- ... tion-myth/
Preliminarily, I found references to and versions of the Greek creation accounts (below) and more superficial references to 'Roman creation accounts' which suggest the Romans mostly got theirs from the Greeks. I haven't yet looked more 'east' or into Egyptian creation accounts or myths.
.
There is no singular creation myth in Greek mythology. Homer, Hesiod, and Orphism all differ in their accounts of how the world, the gods, and humans came to be.
... in ancient Greece, the creation myths, as with many other Greek myths, vary drastically between different traditions. Hesiod provides the most complete and well-known creation myth, while the Homeric tradition creates a bridge between an older tradition and Hesiod. The Orphic tradition, or Orphism, provides a very different account of the creation of the world and mankind.
The first complete account of the Greek creation myths can be found in Hesiod’s Theogony, in which he describes the creation of the world, the gods, and mankind. This poem is the most prominent of the three, as well as the longest written story of the creation myths. Starting with a hymn for the Muses, Theogony tells the story of the universe starting from when there was just one primordial condition, to the creation of women. Hesiod’s other poem, Works and Days, contains myths about the creation of man and woman, but it is not as a whole a creation myth.
In the beginning, there was only Chaos, the primordial condition. The prominence of Chaos as the primordial condition and preceding the primordial beings is significant mythologically and later philosophically. From Chaos emerged Gaia (Earth), Tartarus (Underworld), Eros (Desire), Erebus (Darkness), and Nyx (Night). They then created the rest of the primordial beings, such as Hemera (Day), Uranus (Sky or Heavens), and Pontus (Sea).
Gaia took her son, Uranus, as her husband and gave birth to the Twelve Titans, as well as six monstrous children. Uranus imprisoned the monstrous children, which greatly angered Gaia. In order to punish Uranus, Gaia asked her Titan children to attack their father with a sickle. This began the cycle of sons overthrowing fathers, known as the ‘Succession Myth.’
The ‘Succession Myth’ is repeated several times in Theogony, as well as within Greek mythology.
etc
From https://www.thecollector.com/greek-creation-myths/
There is no singular creation myth in Greek mythology. Homer, Hesiod, and Orphism all differ in their accounts of how the world, the gods, and humans came to be.
... in ancient Greece, the creation myths, as with many other Greek myths, vary drastically between different traditions. Hesiod provides the most complete and well-known creation myth, while the Homeric tradition creates a bridge between an older tradition and Hesiod. The Orphic tradition, or Orphism, provides a very different account of the creation of the world and mankind.
The first complete account of the Greek creation myths can be found in Hesiod’s Theogony, in which he describes the creation of the world, the gods, and mankind. This poem is the most prominent of the three, as well as the longest written story of the creation myths. Starting with a hymn for the Muses, Theogony tells the story of the universe starting from when there was just one primordial condition, to the creation of women. Hesiod’s other poem, Works and Days, contains myths about the creation of man and woman, but it is not as a whole a creation myth.
In the beginning, there was only Chaos, the primordial condition. The prominence of Chaos as the primordial condition and preceding the primordial beings is significant mythologically and later philosophically. From Chaos emerged Gaia (Earth), Tartarus (Underworld), Eros (Desire), Erebus (Darkness), and Nyx (Night). They then created the rest of the primordial beings, such as Hemera (Day), Uranus (Sky or Heavens), and Pontus (Sea).
Gaia took her son, Uranus, as her husband and gave birth to the Twelve Titans, as well as six monstrous children. Uranus imprisoned the monstrous children, which greatly angered Gaia. In order to punish Uranus, Gaia asked her Titan children to attack their father with a sickle. This began the cycle of sons overthrowing fathers, known as the ‘Succession Myth.’
The ‘Succession Myth’ is repeated several times in Theogony, as well as within Greek mythology.
etc
From https://www.thecollector.com/greek-creation-myths/
.
Hesiod's Theogony is a large-scale synthesis of a vast variety of local Greek traditions concerning the gods, organized as a narrative that tells how they came to be and how they established permanent control over the cosmos. It is the first known Greek mythical cosmogony. The initial state of the universe is chaos, a dark indefinite void considered a divine primordial condition from which everything else appeared. Theogonies are a part of Greek mythology which embodies the desire to articulate reality as a whole; this universalizing impulse was fundamental for the first later projects of speculative theorizing.
... in the "Kings and Singers" passage (80–103) Hesiod appropriates to himself the authority usually reserved to sacred kingship ...
Although it is often used as a sourcebook for Greek mythology, Theogony is both more and less than that. In formal terms it is a hymn invoking Zeus and the Muses: parallel passages between it and the much shorter Homeric Hymn to the Muses make it clear that Theogony developed out of a tradition of hymnic preludes with which an ancient Greek rhapsode would begin his performance at poetic competitions. t is necessary to see Theogony not as the definitive source of Greek mythology, but rather as a snapshot of a dynamic tradition that happened to crystallize when Hesiod formulated the myths he knew—and to remember that the traditions have continued evolving since that time.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theogony
Hesiod's Theogony is a large-scale synthesis of a vast variety of local Greek traditions concerning the gods, organized as a narrative that tells how they came to be and how they established permanent control over the cosmos. It is the first known Greek mythical cosmogony. The initial state of the universe is chaos, a dark indefinite void considered a divine primordial condition from which everything else appeared. Theogonies are a part of Greek mythology which embodies the desire to articulate reality as a whole; this universalizing impulse was fundamental for the first later projects of speculative theorizing.
... in the "Kings and Singers" passage (80–103) Hesiod appropriates to himself the authority usually reserved to sacred kingship ...
Although it is often used as a sourcebook for Greek mythology, Theogony is both more and less than that. In formal terms it is a hymn invoking Zeus and the Muses: parallel passages between it and the much shorter Homeric Hymn to the Muses make it clear that Theogony developed out of a tradition of hymnic preludes with which an ancient Greek rhapsode would begin his performance at poetic competitions. t is necessary to see Theogony not as the definitive source of Greek mythology, but rather as a snapshot of a dynamic tradition that happened to crystallize when Hesiod formulated the myths he knew—and to remember that the traditions have continued evolving since that time.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theogony
See also https://www.theoi.com/articles/what-is- ... tion-myth/
.
The influence of Pythagoreanism extended throughout and beyond antiquity because the Pythagorean doctrine of reincarnation was recounted in Plato's Gorgias, Phaedo, and Republic, [and] the Pythagorean cosmology was discussed in Plato's Timaeus ... Plato's dialogues have become an important surviving source of Pythagorean philosophic arguments.
However, Plato [largely] adhered to the dominant Greek philosophy, and the Platonic philosophy suppressed the combination of experimental method and mathematics which was an inherent part of Pythagoreanism. The possible influence of Pythagoreanism on Plato's concept of harmony and the Platonic solids has been discussed extensively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagore ... _Aristotle
The influence of Pythagoreanism extended throughout and beyond antiquity because the Pythagorean doctrine of reincarnation was recounted in Plato's Gorgias, Phaedo, and Republic, [and] the Pythagorean cosmology was discussed in Plato's Timaeus ... Plato's dialogues have become an important surviving source of Pythagorean philosophic arguments.
However, Plato [largely] adhered to the dominant Greek philosophy, and the Platonic philosophy suppressed the combination of experimental method and mathematics which was an inherent part of Pythagoreanism. The possible influence of Pythagoreanism on Plato's concept of harmony and the Platonic solids has been discussed extensively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagore ... _Aristotle
.
Orphism (more rarely Orphicism; Ancient Greek: Ὀρφικά, romanized: Orphiká) is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, as well as from the Thracians, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphism_(religion)
Orphism (more rarely Orphicism; Ancient Greek: Ὀρφικά, romanized: Orphiká) is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, as well as from the Thracians, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphism_(religion)
Re: Do Genesis and "Gnostic" creation accounts share a common origin?
This is worth noting and exploring
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:53 am
In The Great Angel, Margaret Barker essentially puts forward the proposition that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is derived from earlier creation myths about Sophia of Wisdom, in which the event that unfold on earth in Genesis were cast in the heavens among the gods. I found this quite intriguing. However she doesn't have a lot to point to, other than Gnostic texts. But she explains how the Gnostic accounts of Creation relate to the story of Adam and Eve as well as 1 Enoch, and proposes that the Gnostic texts reflect pre-Deuteronomistic versions of the story.
Barker's book was written prior to the work of Gmirkin and others who now propose that the Torah was written in the 3rd century BCE and that Genesis is based on the work of the Babylonian priest Berossus. I'm not sure how this impacts the propositions of Barker.
So, what information is there on the potential origin/background of the Creation and temptation story in Genesis?
Re: Do Genesis and "Gnostic" creation accounts share a common origin?
One subsection of the Wikipedia entry for Sophia, Gnostic Mythos, starts off referring to "Gnostic systems of the Syrian or Egyptian type" which
The next subsection, 'Book of Proverbs', says
.
taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable God, referred to as the Parent or Bythos, or as the Monad by Monoimus/Monoϊmus. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously emanated further Aeons, being pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. Together with the source from which they emanate they form the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature. The transition from the immaterial to the material, from the noumenal to the sensible, is brought about by a flaw, or a passion, or a sin, in one of the Aeons.
In most versions of the Gnostic mythos, it is Sophia who brings about this instability in the Pleroma, in turn bringing about the creation of materiality. According to some Gnostic texts, the crisis occurs as a result of Sophia trying to emanate without her syzygy or, in another tradition, because she tries to breach the barrier between herself and the unknowable Bythos. After cataclysmically falling from the Pleroma, Sophia's fear and anguish of losing her life (just as she lost the light of the One) causes confusion and longing to return to it. Because of these longings, matter (Greek: hylē, ὕλη) and soul (Greek: psychē, ψυχή) accidentally come into existence. The creation of the Demiurge (also known as Yaldabaoth, "Son of Chaos") is also a mistake made during this exile. The Demiurge proceeds to create the physical world in which we live, ignorant of Sophia, who nevertheless manages to infuse some spiritual spark or pneuma into his creation.
In the Pistis Sophia, Christ is sent from the Godhead in order to bring Sophia back into the fullness (Pleroma). Christ enables her to again see the light, bringing her knowledge of the spirit (Greek: pneuma, πνευμα). Christ is then sent to earth in the form of the man Jesus to give men the Gnosis needed to rescue themselves from the physical world and return to the spiritual world. In Gnosticism, the Gospel story of Jesus is itself allegorical: it is the Outer Mystery, used as an introduction to Gnosis, rather than it being literally true in a historical context. For the Gnostics, the drama of the redemption of the Sophia through Christ or the Logos is the central drama of the universe. The Sophia resides in all humans as the Divine Spark.
.
taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable God, referred to as the Parent or Bythos, or as the Monad by Monoimus/Monoϊmus. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously emanated further Aeons, being pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. Together with the source from which they emanate they form the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature. The transition from the immaterial to the material, from the noumenal to the sensible, is brought about by a flaw, or a passion, or a sin, in one of the Aeons.
In most versions of the Gnostic mythos, it is Sophia who brings about this instability in the Pleroma, in turn bringing about the creation of materiality. According to some Gnostic texts, the crisis occurs as a result of Sophia trying to emanate without her syzygy or, in another tradition, because she tries to breach the barrier between herself and the unknowable Bythos. After cataclysmically falling from the Pleroma, Sophia's fear and anguish of losing her life (just as she lost the light of the One) causes confusion and longing to return to it. Because of these longings, matter (Greek: hylē, ὕλη) and soul (Greek: psychē, ψυχή) accidentally come into existence. The creation of the Demiurge (also known as Yaldabaoth, "Son of Chaos") is also a mistake made during this exile. The Demiurge proceeds to create the physical world in which we live, ignorant of Sophia, who nevertheless manages to infuse some spiritual spark or pneuma into his creation.
In the Pistis Sophia, Christ is sent from the Godhead in order to bring Sophia back into the fullness (Pleroma). Christ enables her to again see the light, bringing her knowledge of the spirit (Greek: pneuma, πνευμα). Christ is then sent to earth in the form of the man Jesus to give men the Gnosis needed to rescue themselves from the physical world and return to the spiritual world. In Gnosticism, the Gospel story of Jesus is itself allegorical: it is the Outer Mystery, used as an introduction to Gnosis, rather than it being literally true in a historical context. For the Gnostics, the drama of the redemption of the Sophia through Christ or the Logos is the central drama of the universe. The Sophia resides in all humans as the Divine Spark.
.
The next subsection, 'Book of Proverbs', says
.
Jewish Alexandrine religious philosophy was much occupied with the concept of the Divine Sophia, as the revelation of God's inward thought, and assigned to her not only the formation and ordering of the natural universe (comp. Clem. Hom. xvi. 12) but also the communication of knowledge to mankind. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom (the noun is feminine) is described as God's Counsellor and Workmistress (Master-workman, R.V.), who dwelt beside Him before the Creation of the world and sported continually before Him.
In accordance with the description given in the Book of Proverbs, a dwelling-place was assigned by the Gnostics to the Sophia, and her relation to the upper world defined as well as to the seven planetary powers which were placed under her. The seven planetary spheres or heavens were for the ancients the highest regions of the created universe. They were thought of as seven circles rising one above another, and dominated by the seven Archons. These constituted the (Gnostic) Hebdomad. Above the highest of them, and over-vaulting it, was the Ogdoad, the sphere of immutability, which was nigh to the spiritual world (Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, iv. 25, 161; comp. vi. 16, 138 sqq.). Now, we read in Proverbs 9:1:
. . . . Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars
These seven pillars being interpreted as the planetary heavens, the habitation of the Sophia herself was placed above the Hebdomad in the Ogdoad (Excerpt. ex Theodot. 8, 47). It is said further of the same divine wisdom (Proverbs 8:2):
. . . . She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths
This meant, according to the Gnostic interpretation, that the Sophia has her dwelling-place "on the heights" above the created universe, in the place of the midst, between the upper and lower world, between the Pleroma and the ektismena. She sits at "the gates of the mighty," i.e. at the approaches to the realms of the seven Archons, and at the "entrances" to the upper realm of light her praise is sung. The Sophia is therefore the highest ruler over the visible universe, and at the same time the mediatrix between the upper and the lower realms. She shapes this mundane universe after the heavenly prototypes, and forms the seven star-circles with their Archons under whose dominion are placed, according to the astrological conceptions of antiquity, the fates of all earthly things, and more especially of man. She is "the mother" or "the mother of the living." (Epiph. Haer. 26, 10). As coming from above, she is herself of pneumatic essence, the mētēr phōteinē (Epiph. 40, 2) or the anō dynamis (Epiph. 39, 2) from which all pneumatic souls draw their origin.
Descent
In reconciling the doctrine of the pneumatic nature of the Sophia with the dwelling-place assigned her, according to the Proverbs, in the kingdom of the midst, and so outside the upper realm of light, there was envisioned a descent of Sophia from her heavenly home, the Pleroma, into the void (kenōma) beneath it. The concept was that of a seizure or robbery of light, or of an outburst and diffusion of light-dew into the kenōma, occasioned by a vivifying movement in the upper world. But inasmuch as the light brought down into the darkness of this lower world was thought of and described as involved in suffering, this suffering must be regarded as a punishment. This inference was further aided by the Platonic notion of a spiritual fall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(G ... tic_mythos
.
Jewish Alexandrine religious philosophy was much occupied with the concept of the Divine Sophia, as the revelation of God's inward thought, and assigned to her not only the formation and ordering of the natural universe (comp. Clem. Hom. xvi. 12) but also the communication of knowledge to mankind. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom (the noun is feminine) is described as God's Counsellor and Workmistress (Master-workman, R.V.), who dwelt beside Him before the Creation of the world and sported continually before Him.
In accordance with the description given in the Book of Proverbs, a dwelling-place was assigned by the Gnostics to the Sophia, and her relation to the upper world defined as well as to the seven planetary powers which were placed under her. The seven planetary spheres or heavens were for the ancients the highest regions of the created universe. They were thought of as seven circles rising one above another, and dominated by the seven Archons. These constituted the (Gnostic) Hebdomad. Above the highest of them, and over-vaulting it, was the Ogdoad, the sphere of immutability, which was nigh to the spiritual world (Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, iv. 25, 161; comp. vi. 16, 138 sqq.). Now, we read in Proverbs 9:1:
. . . . Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars
These seven pillars being interpreted as the planetary heavens, the habitation of the Sophia herself was placed above the Hebdomad in the Ogdoad (Excerpt. ex Theodot. 8, 47). It is said further of the same divine wisdom (Proverbs 8:2):
. . . . She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths
This meant, according to the Gnostic interpretation, that the Sophia has her dwelling-place "on the heights" above the created universe, in the place of the midst, between the upper and lower world, between the Pleroma and the ektismena. She sits at "the gates of the mighty," i.e. at the approaches to the realms of the seven Archons, and at the "entrances" to the upper realm of light her praise is sung. The Sophia is therefore the highest ruler over the visible universe, and at the same time the mediatrix between the upper and the lower realms. She shapes this mundane universe after the heavenly prototypes, and forms the seven star-circles with their Archons under whose dominion are placed, according to the astrological conceptions of antiquity, the fates of all earthly things, and more especially of man. She is "the mother" or "the mother of the living." (Epiph. Haer. 26, 10). As coming from above, she is herself of pneumatic essence, the mētēr phōteinē (Epiph. 40, 2) or the anō dynamis (Epiph. 39, 2) from which all pneumatic souls draw their origin.
Descent
In reconciling the doctrine of the pneumatic nature of the Sophia with the dwelling-place assigned her, according to the Proverbs, in the kingdom of the midst, and so outside the upper realm of light, there was envisioned a descent of Sophia from her heavenly home, the Pleroma, into the void (kenōma) beneath it. The concept was that of a seizure or robbery of light, or of an outburst and diffusion of light-dew into the kenōma, occasioned by a vivifying movement in the upper world. But inasmuch as the light brought down into the darkness of this lower world was thought of and described as involved in suffering, this suffering must be regarded as a punishment. This inference was further aided by the Platonic notion of a spiritual fall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(G ... tic_mythos
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Oct 20, 2022 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Do Genesis and "Gnostic" creation accounts share a common origin?
Another subsection is Syrnian Gnosis
.
The Sophia mythos has in the various Gnostic systems undergone great variety of treatment. The oldest, the Syrian Gnosis, referred to the Sophia the formation of the lower world and the production of its rulers the Archons; and along with this they also ascribed to her the preservation and propagation of the spiritual seed.
Formation of the lower world
As described by Irenaeus, the great Mother-principle of the universe appears as the first woman, the Holy Spirit (rūha d'qudshā) moving over the waters, and is also called the mother of all living. Under her are the four material elements—water, darkness, abyss, and chaos. With her, combine themselves into two supreme masculine lights, the first and the second man, the Father and the Son, the latter being also designated as the Father's ennoia.
From their union proceeds the third imperishable light, the third man, Christ. But unable to support the abounding fullness of this light, the mother in giving birth to Christ, suffers a portion of this light to overflow on the left side ... Christ as dexios (He of the right hand) mounts upward with his mother into the imperishable Aeon, that other light which has overflowed on the left hand, [which?] sinks down into the lower world, and there produces matter. And this is the Sophia, called also Aristera (she of the left hand), Prouneikos and the male-female.
There is here, as yet, no thought of a 'fall,' properly so called, as in the Valentinian system ...
Creation and redemption
The narrative proceeds to tell of the formation of the seven Archons by Sophia herself, of the creation of man, which "the mother" (i.e. not the first woman, but the Sophia) uses as a mean to deprive the Archons of their share of light, of the perpetual conflict on his mother's part with the self-exalting efforts of the Archons, and of her continuous striving to recover again and again the light-spark hidden in human nature, till, at length, Christ comes to her assistance and in answer to her prayers, proceeds to draw all the sparks of light to Himself, unites Himself with the Sophia as the bridegroom with the bride, descends on Jesus who has been prepared, as a pure vessel for His reception, by Sophia, and leaves him again before the crucifixion, ascending with Sophia into the world or Aeon which will never pass away (Irenaeus, i. 30; Epiph. 37, 3, sqq.; Theodoret, h. f. i. 14).
As world-soul
In this system the original cosmogonic significance of the Sophia still stands in the foreground. The antithesis of Christus and Sophia, as He of the right (ho dexios) and She of the Left (hē aristera), as male and female, is but a repetition of the first Cosmogonic Antithesis in another form ...
Prunikos
In the Gnostic system described by Irenaeus (I. xxi.; see Ophites) the name Prunikos several times takes the place of Sophia in the relation of her story. The name Prunikos is also given to Sophia in the account of the kindred Barbeliot system, given in the preceding chapter of Irenaeus. Celsus, who shows that he had met with some Ophite work, exhibits acquaintance with the name Prunikos (Orig. Adv. Cels. vi. 34) a name which Origen recognizes as Valentinian. That this Ophite name had really been adopted by the Valentinians is evidenced by its occurrence in a Valentinian fragment preserved by Epiphanius (Epiph. Haer. xxxi. 5). Epiphanius also introduces Prunikos as a technical word in the system of the Simonians (Epiph. Haer. xxi. 2) of those whom he describes under the head of Nicolaitans (Epiph. Haer. xxv. 3, 4) and of the Ophites (Epiph. Haer. xxxvii. 4, 6).
Etymology
Neither Irenaeus nor Origen indicates that he knew anything as to the meaning of this word; and we have no better information on this subject than a conjecture of Epiphanius (Epiph. Haer. xxv. 48) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(G ... ian_Gnosis
The Sophia mythos has in the various Gnostic systems undergone great variety of treatment. The oldest, the Syrian Gnosis, referred to the Sophia the formation of the lower world and the production of its rulers the Archons; and along with this they also ascribed to her the preservation and propagation of the spiritual seed.
Formation of the lower world
As described by Irenaeus, the great Mother-principle of the universe appears as the first woman, the Holy Spirit (rūha d'qudshā) moving over the waters, and is also called the mother of all living. Under her are the four material elements—water, darkness, abyss, and chaos. With her, combine themselves into two supreme masculine lights, the first and the second man, the Father and the Son, the latter being also designated as the Father's ennoia.
From their union proceeds the third imperishable light, the third man, Christ. But unable to support the abounding fullness of this light, the mother in giving birth to Christ, suffers a portion of this light to overflow on the left side ... Christ as dexios (He of the right hand) mounts upward with his mother into the imperishable Aeon, that other light which has overflowed on the left hand, [which?] sinks down into the lower world, and there produces matter. And this is the Sophia, called also Aristera (she of the left hand), Prouneikos and the male-female.
There is here, as yet, no thought of a 'fall,' properly so called, as in the Valentinian system ...
Creation and redemption
The narrative proceeds to tell of the formation of the seven Archons by Sophia herself, of the creation of man, which "the mother" (i.e. not the first woman, but the Sophia) uses as a mean to deprive the Archons of their share of light, of the perpetual conflict on his mother's part with the self-exalting efforts of the Archons, and of her continuous striving to recover again and again the light-spark hidden in human nature, till, at length, Christ comes to her assistance and in answer to her prayers, proceeds to draw all the sparks of light to Himself, unites Himself with the Sophia as the bridegroom with the bride, descends on Jesus who has been prepared, as a pure vessel for His reception, by Sophia, and leaves him again before the crucifixion, ascending with Sophia into the world or Aeon which will never pass away (Irenaeus, i. 30; Epiph. 37, 3, sqq.; Theodoret, h. f. i. 14).
As world-soul
In this system the original cosmogonic significance of the Sophia still stands in the foreground. The antithesis of Christus and Sophia, as He of the right (ho dexios) and She of the Left (hē aristera), as male and female, is but a repetition of the first Cosmogonic Antithesis in another form ...
Prunikos
In the Gnostic system described by Irenaeus (I. xxi.; see Ophites) the name Prunikos several times takes the place of Sophia in the relation of her story. The name Prunikos is also given to Sophia in the account of the kindred Barbeliot system, given in the preceding chapter of Irenaeus. Celsus, who shows that he had met with some Ophite work, exhibits acquaintance with the name Prunikos (Orig. Adv. Cels. vi. 34) a name which Origen recognizes as Valentinian. That this Ophite name had really been adopted by the Valentinians is evidenced by its occurrence in a Valentinian fragment preserved by Epiphanius (Epiph. Haer. xxxi. 5). Epiphanius also introduces Prunikos as a technical word in the system of the Simonians (Epiph. Haer. xxi. 2) of those whom he describes under the head of Nicolaitans (Epiph. Haer. xxv. 3, 4) and of the Ophites (Epiph. Haer. xxxvii. 4, 6).
Etymology
Neither Irenaeus nor Origen indicates that he knew anything as to the meaning of this word; and we have no better information on this subject than a conjecture of Epiphanius (Epiph. Haer. xxv. 48) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(G ... ian_Gnosis
The rest of that Sophia wikipedia page has good outlines of other 'Gnostic' systems
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Oct 20, 2022 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Do Genesis and "Gnostic" creation accounts share a common origin?
fwiw, there's also commentary such as this
Dunno how plausible this is, but, fwiw, here it is
[b] - "b" because there's two section '3's on that page
Gnostic Christianity: Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement with roots in pre-Christian times. Gnostics combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. "Among Gnostic Christians there were communities under the name of John and Thomas and many other lesser and later disciples."6 They claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity, and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. They were/are noted for their:
In addition to the above three main groups, there were many smaller religious communities, which have been referred to as Matthean Christianity, Johannine Christianity, etc. "Among Jews especially in the East there were Christian communities and literature under the name of Peter and James that stood in opposition to Paul and John."6 Together produced many dozens of gospels and hundreds of Epistles (letters). "Many of these other Gospels outside the New Testament had very different views of Jesus, produced in communities that held widely different understandings of Jesus."7
6. Gregory J. Riley, "The River of God," Harper San Francisco, (2001), p.8
7. ibid, p.7
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm
- Novel interpretations of the Bible, the world and the rest of the universe.
- Belief that the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) was a defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. He was viewed as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion and prone to committing genocide.
- Tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism.
- Lack of discrimination against women.
In addition to the above three main groups, there were many smaller religious communities, which have been referred to as Matthean Christianity, Johannine Christianity, etc. "Among Jews especially in the East there were Christian communities and literature under the name of Peter and James that stood in opposition to Paul and John."6 Together produced many dozens of gospels and hundreds of Epistles (letters). "Many of these other Gospels outside the New Testament had very different views of Jesus, produced in communities that held widely different understandings of Jesus."7
6. Gregory J. Riley, "The River of God," Harper San Francisco, (2001), p.8
7. ibid, p.7
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm
Dunno how plausible this is, but, fwiw, here it is
3.[b] Gnostic Christianity consisted of many separate groups with no appreciable central organization. Each group was [often] under the leadership of a Gnostic teacher ... These groups shared some core beliefs, but otherwise differed greatly from each other. The Gnostic movement initially expanded, and at one point was the primary form of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean. However, due to programs of persecution and extermination by Pauline Christians, it later went into a steep decline, and ceased being a significant force by the 6th century.
[b] - "b" because there's two section '3's on that page
Backtracking the Judeo-/Syro-Egyptian Serpent Motif (aka Moses)
The Moses Myth of c.273 BC is a synthesis of more recent Semitic and Hellenistic elements w/ ancient Syro-Egyptian folklore. Obviously, the snake-cult was subsumed by scribal rationalization into the National Hero Myth, but consider some of the prehistoric features outlined here. We KNOW that Ophites still existed in the 2nd C. AD; we SHOULD NOT assume they were 'new' at that point. It is apparent to me that some Wisdom literature (c.150 BC - 35 AD) was trying to 'rationalize' (i.e. abstract) the Semitic folklore of such quasi-Judaic snake-venerating (Ophite) groups, to 'bring them into the fold' as it were.
The snake symbolism in the LXX is not random, accidental, or meaningless. A number of Gnostic cosmogonies preserve elements of that Semitic (Phoenician?) serpent cult which had once been extensive throughout the E. Mediterranean c.1000 BC. The 'Ophites' were part of an ancient, archaic heterodox Judaic folk-culture, not some 'new' literary circle. This is one important strand of the Proto-Gnostic movement: the First C. AD teachings (e.g. The Paraphrase of Shem) by Jewish 'Therapeutae' record the same scribal intent - recycling and rationalization of older Judaic myth, for whatever contemporary propaganda purposes - already evident in the creation of the LXX.
As much for myself as for anyone interested, here is what I want to investigate further, LINK.
* outstanding free book! Strangely, no one here has mentioned Michael Astour's relevant work; the magnificent scope of his scholarship (imagine a legitimate G.Massey) is a treat. On Hellenosemitica, go to p.44.
c.450 BC? Moses and the Brazen Serpent:
c.540 BC, Isaiah 27:1: "Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent... the monster of the sea."
c.1600 BC: Minoan snake goddess figurine (Syrian or Egyptian influence?)
The snake symbolism in the LXX is not random, accidental, or meaningless. A number of Gnostic cosmogonies preserve elements of that Semitic (Phoenician?) serpent cult which had once been extensive throughout the E. Mediterranean c.1000 BC. The 'Ophites' were part of an ancient, archaic heterodox Judaic folk-culture, not some 'new' literary circle. This is one important strand of the Proto-Gnostic movement: the First C. AD teachings (e.g. The Paraphrase of Shem) by Jewish 'Therapeutae' record the same scribal intent - recycling and rationalization of older Judaic myth, for whatever contemporary propaganda purposes - already evident in the creation of the LXX.
As much for myself as for anyone interested, here is what I want to investigate further, LINK.
Astour(1965*) summarizes his case that the name Mosheh/Moses seems to be derived from the serpent god, rather than the Egyptian term for “born”:
We have seen how Moses and Aaron’s staffs turn into snakes (Exod 4:3, 7:10), how Yahweh sent “fiery serpents” against the Israelites (Num 21:6), and how the patriarch raised up a magical bronze serpent, נחשתן Nĕchushtan (2 Ki 18:4), as a talisman against death by snake bite (Num 21:9). We have noted too that the entwined snakes symbolizing the healing deity date to at least the third millennium BCE, with the magical and healing serpent controlling spells part of an ancient priesthood.
We also have discussed that the Levitical priesthood is named from the same root as “Leviathan,” connoting sea monster. Noteworthy too is Yahweh’s “hissing,” previously mentioned. Additionally, some of the muš terms, such as bašmu, are used to designate a horned serpent, providing yet another reason for that motif in the Moses myth.
Important also is the suggestion that the biblical term נחש nachash denoting “serpent” could represent the Babylonian snake god Šaḫan, cast in Genesis 3 in the role of bringer of knowledge and wisdom.
For the Hebrew Môše, too, the association with the Canaaneo-Sumerian serpent-god seems to be much more convincing than with the pale banal Egyptian hypocoristic [diminutive] from some name composed with ms(w) “born.” The ophic features of Moses are very pronounced: his sacred emblems are the serpent-wand and the bronze serpent on a pole; his tribe is Levi, whose name signifies “serpent” and who was the son of Leah, the “cow”...; he is a healer in the full sense of this word, knowing both how to cause and to heal diseases.
We have seen how Moses and Aaron’s staffs turn into snakes (Exod 4:3, 7:10), how Yahweh sent “fiery serpents” against the Israelites (Num 21:6), and how the patriarch raised up a magical bronze serpent, נחשתן Nĕchushtan (2 Ki 18:4), as a talisman against death by snake bite (Num 21:9). We have noted too that the entwined snakes symbolizing the healing deity date to at least the third millennium BCE, with the magical and healing serpent controlling spells part of an ancient priesthood.
We also have discussed that the Levitical priesthood is named from the same root as “Leviathan,” connoting sea monster. Noteworthy too is Yahweh’s “hissing,” previously mentioned. Additionally, some of the muš terms, such as bašmu, are used to designate a horned serpent, providing yet another reason for that motif in the Moses myth.
Important also is the suggestion that the biblical term נחש nachash denoting “serpent” could represent the Babylonian snake god Šaḫan, cast in Genesis 3 in the role of bringer of knowledge and wisdom.
* outstanding free book! Strangely, no one here has mentioned Michael Astour's relevant work; the magnificent scope of his scholarship (imagine a legitimate G.Massey) is a treat. On Hellenosemitica, go to p.44.
c.450 BC? Moses and the Brazen Serpent:
c.540 BC, Isaiah 27:1: "Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent... the monster of the sea."
c.1600 BC: Minoan snake goddess figurine (Syrian or Egyptian influence?)