Soon after scholars had a chance to examine the Gospel of Judas it became clear that it embodied a form of early Christian Gnosticism known as “Sethian.” Most descriptions that you find of Gnosticism are simplistic and do not actually reflect the mind-boggling complexities of the texts that embody it, to the extent that even if you master the basic descriptions you find, it is very hard to make sense of any of the texts.
That is certainly true of the Sethian writings! To say they are gloriously confusing is a serious understatement. They involve myths filled with wierd names and intricacies of relationships and events that are hard to explain in the abstract.
But hey, you gotta try! And if you don’t have much space to do so, well, you do the best you can. Here is how I explain Sethian Gnosticism in my book After the New Testament , 2nd edition. (The book is actually an anthology of early Christian texts writings all kinds, and I include selections from three key Sethian texts.)
***************************************************************
Sethian Gnostics
The group of Gnostics that scholars have labeled the “Sethians” are known from the writings of proto-orthodox heresiologists beginning with Irenaeus (around 180 CE) and from some of the significant writings of the Nag Hammadi library. They were a thriving sect already by the middle of the second century.
Members of the group may not have called themselves Sethians. Scholars call them this because among their distinctive features they understood themselves to be the spiritual descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. Many of the books associated with the Sethians present detailed and complex myths that explain the origins of the divine realm, the material world, and the humans who inhabit it. These mind-stretching myths…
To see the rest of this post, you will need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong, don’t you feel the need? No need to be needy! Join! Remember, all proceeds go to charity helping … those in need!
Can you give an estimate about what proportion of Christians were gnostics of one sort or another, say up to the time of Constantine?
At the time of Constantine it must have been a very small number. 1-2%? 150 years earlier? Impossible to say. But I shouldn’t think more than 8-10%. Probably far fewer. Just a guess.
Given the relatively small numbers of ‘gnostic’ christians, then, why do you think so much effort was dedicated by the photo-orthodox church writers against it? It would seem to me that gnosticism in the very early church was no more significant than the other variants/divisions that existed between Rome, Asia Minor, North Africa and Egypt, for example.
Well, there are a lot of people afraid that the world will end if the LGBTQ community is given the rights accorded heterosexuals. Fear is not always commensurate to “threat”
Isn’t this what the author of 1 Tim 6:20 is referring to when he says “turn away from profane empty babblings and unorthodox teachings falsely called gnosis”?
He does not appear to be referring to the advanced forms of Gnostic thought we know about now, but simply those who claim to “know” the truth but teach falsehood. Nothing he says about the false teachings he encounters resembles our later gnostic texts closely.
There is quite a lot of “Seth” material among New Age groups. Is the connection to Sethian Gnosticism direct? I mean, is the new “Seth” material consciously continuing the older tradition? Both do seem to share at least some of the gnostic cosmology. http://www.thenewgnosis.org/thesethiangnosisoldandnew.htm
No, it got picked up after Gnostic texts were discovered in the mid 20th century.
I didn’t phrase my question well. I meant to ask if the new Sethian stuff seems consciously influenced by the older material that was discovered in Nag Hammadi.
Thanks Bart. Great read. I love the Gnostic Myths, to me they make weird sense, the journey is within .
Much attention is given to Gnosticism in Bart’s recent posts. We read that some of the Nag Hammadi texts were not Christian (What is Gnosticism, August 2). This is news to me, I had been led to believe that Gnosticism was the esoteric form of Christianity. Its dualism is clear: there is a good God (Original Spirit) and a bad God (Ialdabaoth) who is the offspring of the Original Spirit. Were the non-Christian Nag Hammadi texts Zoroastrian? If not, what were they?
Did I say they were not Christian? Oh dear — if I did, I completely misspoke. Most of them certainly were Christain.
At which point I raise my hand in class and ask “These divine beings, aeons, seem vaguely familiar to Greek gods. Is there evidence that Sethians were influenced by Greek mythology?”
Certainly by forms of Greek thought, especially middle-PLatonism. None of the traditional Greek gods is named as teh deities int he Pleroma though.
Makes me think of Hindoo thinking with goals of Moksha, Nervana and such. Such thinking would have been long available at libraries like Alexandria often with scholars from those places. Perhaps we can credit some of their students for thought that does not fit well into local traditions?
I’m not familiar with any Hindu influence on the Greek scholars on Alexandria.
It has been argued that following Alexander the Great’s conquest of parts of North Western India, some elements of Buddhism and Hinduism may have influenced Greek philosophy, including practitioners such as Hegesias, who did visit Alexandria. But the evidence is patchy.
Fascinating. I always wondered how Gnostics recognized which of us humans has the divine spark. Was it based, say, on intelligence or some kind of greater than average personal spirituality?
Hey, if you don’t know you’re not a Gnostic. 🙂
I guess I walked right into that one ????
Easy to do!
Prof ehrman so Jesus didn’t plan to be crucified and also he didn’t know right? Those sin redemption just an invention also Jesus himself never said he was god but that was word that put in Jesus mouth by scribes lie and the sin redemption by Jesus death also frabricated story ,also in our Islam there story in quran where god warn Jesus follower not to betray Jesus after all god did to them, but then in bible we know one Jesus disciple betray Jesus and make Jesus about to be arrested, but in quran it’s said god save Jesus from being arrested and being crucified, but instead god punish Judas by make his face resemble the face of Jesus so they crucified Judas and torture him instead , but god just raised Jesus alive to heaven , so tahts explain actually the story of death of Judas are only fabricated tahts why they are contradict each other also the story of Jesus ressurection also didn’t exist I think we find story connection here
Dr ehrman what do you think about this ?
Sorry, you need to explain what you want to know before I can answer.
Can you answer the mark question above? And what do you think about that statement that we connect between quran and bible
I think you’re having trouble understanding who to ask a question on the blog. I do not have a record of what you said before. If you want to ask a question again, you need to state the entire question, otherwise I won’t know what you’re talking about. When you want me to “answer the question mark” I don’t know you mean.
Mistake in a bible that can be refuted are basically like scientific error or mathematical error can you mention some like that ?
I’d say it’s a rather serious scientific error to claim that the universe, including the earth with all its life, was created in six days.
Great stuff !
From what I understand, this branch of Gnosticism (Sethian or Barbelo Gnosticism) was originaly pre-Christian (probably Judaic?) With a focus on Barbolo (wisdom) and Seth. It was through some of the essential Gnostic texts, for example through the Gnostic “Apocryphon of John” that they Christianized it (?) where the Great Seth became Christ.
To me, this intriguing idea of a more or less established Gnostic system that may be pre-Christian gave rise to a dimension of symbolism perhaps used through biblical texts, well aware that the other more Christian Gnostic branches (Thomas / Johannine / Vaneltinian) were established from the end of the 1st century and a couple of centuries after that.
I believer the standard view now is that it was not pre-Christian but developed out of a range of influences, including some knowledge of Christainity.
PS. I must admit that I do have a soft spot for the Gnostics. If I lived in a country where you were compelled to have a religion but could choose any one you liked, I would go for Gnosticism.
hmmm, I wonder what part appeals? In any event, it may not be too late. I met a woman a few years back at a bible study group in Florida who said she was a Gnostic. Unfortunately, I didn’t know enough about it to make the appropriate inquiries..
For me it’s the fact that only in the Gnostic Gospels does Jesus actually laugh. So I reckoned that folks who at least had a sense of humor can’t be all bad.
In the earlier post, you wrote that Gospel of Judas was written by Cainites. Now you wrote that it belonged to Sethians. Is there contradiction here?
There would be if that’s what I said! What I said is that Irenaeus claimed the book was used by Cainites. Now I’m saying that it was written by a Sethian. Either Irenaeus was wrong or the Cainites were Sethian or the Cainites used a book written by a Sethian.
Fascinating! So this form of gnosticism is not docetic? They believe that Seth was incarnated in Jesus versus possessing him? Is this “Seth” the same as Adams third son? If so, does this mean that Adam’s third son had ascended after life on earth and then descended in the incarnation that was Jesus? Does the “Christ” or “Son” in relation to Barbelo play a role in the Jesus incarnation as well?
This form of Gnosticism believes that the man Jesus was an actual human being; but the Christ was a separate, divine being, who termporarily indwelt and impowered him, prior to his death. So it’s not “docetic’ but “separationist” (separating the Jesus from the Christ, as two distinct entities)
Hello Dr. Ehrman. I just want to say thank you for what you do. I haven’t had much money to donate yet, but I will soon. I still believe and want to be a member of the great movement you are creating. Thank you sir. ????
I have been a member of this blog for a few years. Thank you for your knowledge. You have helped me through my hard time because how great of a person you are.
This is fascinating stuff. Were Gnostics primarily gentiles, or were there Jews as well?
Mainly gentiles, almost certainly; but highly revered the Hebrew Bible and its secret teachings.
I feel like reading these (and I have tried) is like reading a text in a related language, like German (I’m Swedish). I can see the outline of what is being said, but the details are completely beyond me. Or, if they had to read a modern novel dealing with cars and buses and computers… there’s so much context that has been lost to time.
What I find interesting about the Gnostics and their view of creation is that there almost seem to be echos of some of these ideas in Scientology.
I would suppose that means that this is something that you find intereesting about *Scientology” (since the Gnostics had no way of knowing that would happen).
The Dead Sea Scrolls describe the doctrine of two spirits:
“the God of Knowledge … has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits …: the spirits of truth and injustice. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of injustice are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness.”
This is also a dualistic doctrine, isn’t it, but both the goodness and the badness originates from the One God, not from a Demiurge or from some other higher God. Was this doctrine Jewish, Christian, Gnostic or something completely different?
It was Jewish before it was Christian, and non-Gnostic Christian before it was Gnostic.
Dr. Ehrman,
“Heaven and Hell” is a great book. The next time someone says that an eternal hell seems unfair, are we right to remind them that both Jesus and Paul did not believe in an eternal hell but rather annihilation?
Yes please! By all means!
Do you think that all the trouble of understanding Paul is that anyone refers to him as a theologian instead of a mystic?
The imperfect and awful material world is the starting experience of imperfection and distance to purification, the dichotomy between the soul and the aging painful body.
Paul was just trying to reconcile his experience of the risen Christ and his personal story.
Gnostic brought to the end Pauls’personal experience trying to make sense. But is like conveying someone about swimming when they had nothing to do with the water in the first place.
You got the glare of things, not their essence.
I’m not sure calling him a mystic will make him any easier to understand. You still have to interpret his words.
I don’t feel like using one googolplex of words like Jason Staples to explain what Paul intended with “All Israel” is a way to understand anything. If you don’t know the solution to a problem, how do you know whether your vocabulary makes the distinctions it needs?
Will all Israel be saved? Really?
Recognizing Paul as a mystic has the power to abstract the problem beyond words and to eliminate irrelevant details and make it small enough to understand it.
For instance, once a mystic was asked: “You are always contradictory. Does that mean you always change your mind?”
And he answered: “I contradict myself because life goes on changing. It does not matter whether it contradicts anything said in the past. When it was said, it was (absolutely) true for the moment; what I am saying at this moment is (absolutely) true to this moment. ”
You can’t apply the principle of non-contradiction on these guys, they defy any reason. Only meta-rationality can be applied. Nobody can’t be sure of what we are saying, but mystics bring this impossibility to the extremes, that’s why heuristics methods should be used to make a model more likely.
Was there anyone before Irenaeus that wrote against Gnosticism? If so, who was the first to do so?
Probably lots. Justin definitely did, but we don’t hae his writings.