THE EGYPTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF GNOSTIC THOUGHT

surface in a large segment of Gnostic theology. As with the well-understood literary
and musical “variations on a theme”, one does not imagine these works as an attempt
to dogmatically convey the original text or score, rather they take the earlier work as
inspirational and use it as a starting point for variations and new explorations. The
new work is expected to display the inspirational genius of the artist, and to indict the
work as derivative, or conversely to claim that it isn’t true enough to the original, is to
entirely miss the point of the “mythopoeic” enterprise. And all of this of course is not
to deny the underling literary and musical conventions that all such variations must
adhere to.
We have a similar problem with the scholarly construct of Valentinianism,
properly or improperly so called. We essentially have little idea about the cultic
activities of such a group, nor can we say that there was a proselytising group of
missionaries who promulgated a system in the manner of the Manichaeans, or the
orthodox church for that matter. What we can say, in light of the above observations,
is that a number of Gnostics created a constellation of “Variations on a Theme by
Valentinus” in the key of Egyptian emanationist theologies as we have seen in
Chapter 12. It is the clear adherence to emanationist convention that demonstrates the
ultimate derivation of so-called Valentinianism and Sethian Gnostic thought.
I adopt a middle ground between Wisse and Schenke, for the Sethian motif is
apparent and does point towards the “esoteric Jewish” component in Gnostic thought.
It is the very eclectic esotericism in this genre which precludes the need for strict
theological clarity in occidental terms. Our task at hand is to examine the role of the
Egyptian Seth in Gnostic thought. In doing so we do not posit Seth’s continued role
within Egyptian myth, but rather note his demonisation, his fusion with the Greek
Typhon, and most importantly his suggestive archetype subtending Gnostic demiurgic
functions.
It is my contention that as the disruption of native pharaonic rule continued
from Persian times onwards, the Egyptian sense of ma’at was severely shaken. If
order in the visible world, and therefore the invisible as well for the theogony results
in the creation of Egypt, wherefrom does the new disruption and evil in the land
originate? Nun and the so-called Chaos gods are obvious candidates as evidenced in
the magical papyri and Gnostic texts. However, this level of divinity is not directly
bound up with the created world and is to be associated with the Primal Source of a
hypostatic stream of Order, forever bounded by Disorder. The seasonal flood and
withdrawal of the Nile to its orderly banks, leaving behind the possibility for
organisation and beneficence in the newly fecundated fields – this was but a
reverberation of Nun’s more central role in bounding Disorder as an ontological
predicate.
The significance of Seth for Gnostic thought ranks alongside that of the
Isis/Tefnut myths we have already examined. Seth is a self-directed agent who revolts
against established order, even before birth in breaking through Nut’s side. As a result
of his controversial behaviour, Seth is often replaced in the ennead by Horus or Thoth
for example. 3
He is the principle of the dysteliological within the bounded theogonic
order, whereas Nun and the Heh-gods are on the macrocosmic frontier. One sees a
desire in Egyptian theology to situate Seth upon this edge as Seth is finally cast out
into Asia in the Late Period from whence he returns to wreak havoc in Egypt. The
3
te Velde, “Relations and Conflicts between Egyptian Gods, particularly in the Divine Ennead
of Heliopolis,” 242.