THE EGYPTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF GNOSTIC THOUGHT

Chapter Thirteen: The Seth Principle: Demiurgic Backlash to Pleromic Limits
In the field of Gnostic Studies the figure of Seth stands at the centre of
Sethianism, “properly or improperly so called”. The caveat is proposed by Frederick
Wisse who likens the enterprise, in zoological terms, to past attempts to establish the
historicity of the unicorn. 1
The tractates that appear to indicate the Sethian presence
rarely contain all six themes laid out by Schenke; even then, the same themes appear
in different forms and in different contexts and are often obscure and muddled in their
focus and variations. Wisse then goes on to make an important hermeneutic critique
of Schenke and all those in Gnostic Studies who have followed his lead. These
exegetists insist upon viewing Gnostic authors as “sect theologians”, and all
contradiction and confusion apparent in the array of texts before us must therefore, in
this view, result from inept translation and copying or redaction processes that refract
the system far from its systemic inception. Wisse then turns to examine the nature of
Gnostic composition, one that is at the heart of the present study and which, when
properly understood, must remove the “ism” from Gnostic thought. Wisse’s
conclusions are worth citing in part:
1) The gnostic tractates in question must not be seen as the teaching of a sect or
sects, but as the inspired creations of individuals who did not feel bound by the
opinions of the religious community.
2) Recurring themes such as those Schenke isolated were not part of a
particular gnostic system but “free-floating” theologumena and mythologumena
which one could use as one saw fit. As Klijn and others have shown, quite a
number of these can be traced back to esoteric circles, and they can be shown to
have been available to persons of diverse religious backgrounds. Even if a
definite meaning was attached to these theologumena the gnostic author felt free
to change the meaning and original context.
3) This group of writings should be evaluated and interpreted differently from
theological treatises in the orthodox tradition. They do not adhere to the
expected pattern of systematic thinking and argumentation. Conflicting thoughts
do not appear to offend the author.... 2
So far so good, however Wisse goes on to recommend that a penetrating analysis of
the structure of such writings would be improper, and that they were intended
primarily for meditation. Yet the two aims are not mutually exclusive: Wisse’s
analysis is correct in devaluing the attribute of a self-conscious cultic cohesiveness
upon the Gnostic movement as a whole; however, this must not obscure the host of
mythological substructures, in terms of the emanationist systems employed, that
1
Frederick Wisse, “Stalking Those Elusive Sethians,”in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol.
2, Sethian Gnosticism, ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), 563-76. Wisse very
effectively details the problems with the thematic filter established by Hans-Martin Schenke,
“Das sethianische Systen nach Nag-Hammadi-Handschriften,” in Studia Coptica, ed. Peter
Nagel (Berlin: Academie Verlag, 1974), 165-73.
2
Wisse, “Stalking Those Elusive Sethians,” 575-76.