The Nous in Gnosticism

[Nebankh]

Hi Miguel,

Is 'Thunder Perfect Mind' from the Nag Hammadi collection attributed to the Nous?

Jaq

[abraxas]

I guess if you wanted to get really esoteric and, like with the Gospel of John, assume that the 'I AM's' are a reference to one's divine self, you could make a case.

'Thunder' is an aretalogy, very similar to what you find coming from the Isis or the Wisdom Literature. A godly being introduces herself to the material world.

Some scholars believe that Isis is the speaker. Other assume it's Sophia or Barbelo, since parts of her speech are found in 'The Origins of the World' and 'The Nature of the Archons', making a Sethian writing. Some scholars have posited the protagonist is Eve, and that 'Thunder' might be related to the lost 'Gospel of Eve'.

The author obviously wishes to teach, exhort and convert the reader through a series of contradictions, a Hellenistic tool (there is no philosophy in the text).

Miguel

[Nebankh]

I guess if you wanted to get really esoteric and, like with the Gospel of John, assume that the 'I AM's' are a reference to one's divine self, you could make a case.

I do like getting really esoteric, and I must admit I'm exploring the possibility that it's a reference to one's divine self

'Thunder' is an aretalogy, very similar to what you find coming from the Isis or the Wisdom Literature. A godly being introduces herself to the material world.

Some scholars believe that Isis is the speaker. Other assume it's Sophia or Barbelo, since parts of her speech are found in 'The Origins of the World' and 'The Nature of the Archons', making a Sethian writing. Some scholars have posited the protagonist is Eve, and that 'Thunder' might be related to the lost 'Gospel of Eve'.

Yes, I've read suggestions of the speaker being Isis, Sophia or Barbelo and I completely understand the reasons supporting those suggestions (in my mind they all represent different aspects of the same thing, even Shekinah, though I understand that each is seen as a seperate 'entity' by some).

As the speaker refers to itself as 'her', there's a stronger case for that I suppose. I've no intention of trying to make a case for the Nous being a feminine concept, but at the same time, I wonder if the author of the work may have written it in terms of a/the 'divine feminine' for a reason..such as to distinguish it from the voice of the creator god. Just a line of thought, and opportunities to explore this kind of thing, with someone who's knowledgeable on such aspects, don't present themselves very often

The author obviously wishes to teach, exhort and convert the reader through a series of contradictions, a Hellenistic tool (there is no philosophy in the text).

It's a very interesting method, I love this work and read it often.

Thanks for your reply and your help Miguel,

Jaq