Talk:Hermetica

Untitled

Can someone with more knowledge in this subject please write something about Hermes Emerald Tablet (or "Table") and how it relates to the Hermetica? The two confuse me all the time, is the Emerald Tablet part of the Hermetica or not? Nixdorf 19:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. I saw two problems with the phrase:

1. What's a lineage? Does it mean some kind of semi-organized sect? Or just a continuous stream of thought? And was Hermetic thought really that continuous? I thought we could be more precise.
2. How appropriate is 'Gnosticism'? Seems to me there's some overlap in style of thought and audience, but in general:
   1. Hermetica is a literary phenomenon, Gnosticism is a sect/family of sects.
   2. Hermetica gets started ~1st cent. AD, Gnosticism ~2nd-3rd cent. AD.
   3. Hermetica stays as pagan as it can, Gnosticism happily incorporates Jewish/Christian themes.

Nevertheless, this does bear discussion in the article. Your point about "non-Christian" is good, and right now is under-emphasized. In fact, there's very little about the original context of the texts. Any improvements would be welcome. Bacchiad 13:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the recent major edits, was it deliberate to lose the remark about "a non-Christian lineage of Hellenistic Gnosticism"? If so, is this because it was considered false, or did someone just not like the remark? -- Jmabel 03:59, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not knowlegable enough to write too much here myself: what I know largely comes from reading Frances Yates on Giordano Bruno about 30 years ago, so I'm not going to be able to carry the ball. Nonetheless, I do think that it is important that part of the interest in the rediscovery of these works during the Renaissance came precisely from the fact that they were outside of Christian tradition. If someone is more solid on this, it would be good to get into the article. -- Jmabel 04:49, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've done some revisions that I think cover the Hermetica in antiquity better. If you want to pitch in some additional Yatesian stuff about the Hermetic/pagan revival in the Renaissance, that'd be great. Thanks for your comments. Bacchiad 07:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

"renaissance of syncretic thought"

I substituted "flourishing" because I thought "renaissance" in the general sense might lead to a confusion with "Renaissance" qua historical period. At least it did to my sleep-deprived eyes as I read it over just now. No biggy though. Bacchiad 19:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Golden Dawn

Should we really have the recently added link Golden Dawn Research Center? Looks pretty crackpotty to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't Hermetica been a crackpot magnet for almost 2000 years? --Wetman 21:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No doubt. But this article should presumably not be on the crackpot side of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. What should be done? --Wetman 23:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will move it to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn if it is not already there. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Golden Dawn most famous member was Aliester Crowley.... I agree - a little crackpotty but a valid organization for many years.--Maa-Kheru 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with us having an article on the Golden Dawn; it's just that external links to Golden Dawn, O.T.O, etc. don't belong in the "Hermetica" article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To different difinitions of "hermetically sealed"

This article says:

Among other things there are spells to magically protect objects, hence the origin of the term "Hermetically sealed".

The article "Hermetically sealed" says:

Hermes purportedly authored several books containing secrets of alchemy and mystic philosophy. One such secret contained in his works was how to create an airtight vessel. His "hermetically sealed" container employed the use of a vacuum pump.

Now these are two totally different origins of the phrase "hermetically sealed".

What is correct? --Abdull 09:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ogdoad and Ennead

Recently added:

The mostly gnostic Nag Hammadi Library discovered in 1945 also contained one hermetic text previously not known to scholars. This treatise called "The Ogdoad and the Ennead" contains a very lively description of a hermetic initiation into gnosis, and has led to new perspectives on the nature of Hermetism as a whole, particularly due to the research of Jean-Pierre Mahé.

I'm confused, maybe because I'm far from expert, or maybe because this isn't quite right. I thought the "Ogdoad" and the "Ennead" were two separate texts, but this suggests they were a single text. Is this passage simply mistaken? Am I simply mistaken? Is there perhaps a modern text entitled "The Ogdoad and the Ennead" that miswording has suggested was ancient? or what? The lack of citation makes it impossible for me to follow up, myself. This must have come from somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is translated as "Discourse on the Eighth and the Ninth" - Nag Hammadi Codex VI, 6. Zeusnoos 18:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yoshi's Cookie

What does Yoshi's Cookie have to do with Hermetica??? I'll replace it with Hermética, if someone has a good motive to have it, pleace add it to 'other uses'. Mariano(t/c) 07:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read on the old Bullet-Proof Software website, the game Yoshi's Cookie is based off of another game called Hermetica. I can't find any other info. GLmathgrant 01:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I understand it, based on what I remember of an article in Nintendo Power: BPS developed a Super NES puzzle game called Hermetica. Nintendo became interested, struck a deal with BPS to reskin it with Mario graphics, and released it as Yoshi's Cookie. BPS published it on Super NES; Nintendo published it on all other systems. In fact, this split influenced the graphical style of the YC elements of Tetris DS. [1] --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hermetism v. gnosis

The line "description of a hermetic initiation into gnosis" needs editing. I join Bacchiad above.--Connection 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletion

Connection, what was with this massive deletion? The edit summary "Sorry, it needs more research beyong the Corpus" is not much of an explanation. I'm not expert on the topic at hand, so I'm just asking questions, but much of what was deleted here seemed at least congruent with what little on the Hermetica I learned in college 30-odd years ago. Was it wrong? Covered elsewhere? or what? - Jmabel | Talk 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Th full extent of the blanking. --Wetman 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wetman, The full extent of the blanking is repeated in Corpus Hermeticum. Now the chess game has moved backward. Would you push it foreward again? ;) --Connection 12:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for consulting me and assuming good faith. The text is alright. It only reflects a confounding of Hermetica (as a system and literature), and of the Corpus Hermeticum (a specific text and known set of volumes). I simply tried to separate them in two articles. The latter, Corpus Hermeticum, has been created, where the "Massive deletion" has been moved. After the 02:29, 22 June 2006 edit, the same text is displayed in two locations. Please amend. I'll leave it to you.--Connection 23:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermetica is a set of texts, a literary genre. There was quite a lot of it. The Corpus Hermeticum is a specific subset of that genre established in the Renaissance. This is a whole/part distinction, not a one-thing/other-thing distinction. The text should remain. Bacchiad 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Connection, thanks for clarifying. Hope you don't mind that I will leave it to someone else to sort out whether the full duplication is OK or whether the text in this article should be trimmed. Yes, it is whole/part, still it might make sense for some of this to be only' in the more specific article, I don't have an opinion, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't lost. - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should there be two separate articles? Bacchiad 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They need distinctively more development. It makes more sense. Above all, Corpus Hermeticum is important enough to have its own article. Further, the current article text is confusing whether it is describing the whole or the part. I rest.--Connection 12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be right about the two separate articles thing. I don't care to argue that one at length. What parts of the current article do you find confusing? Bacchiad 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially early on, under "Dating", the text says:

  While they are difficult to date with precision, the texts of the Corpus were likely composed between the first and third centuries.
  During the Renaissance, these texts...

For the layman reader, the Corpus is understood generally as a "body of literature". It is not clear the description applies to the whole or the part. We need to point out that knowledge of the Whole is obscure/vague/whatever, and that there is specific set of texts known as Corpus Hermeticum that are available in print/online. That at the outset. Then, it will be better if the the reader is referred to the more detailed article of the Corpus Hermeticum.--Connection 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Move Corpus Hermeticum info to its own article?

Shouldn't we move the Corpus Hermeticum material to the actual article, Corpus Hermeticum? It seems that the same content is on both pages. 24.18.35.120 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps these two articles are actually one article. What would be the motivation of isolating Corpus Hermeticum from Hermetica? "Corpus Hermeticum is collection of several Greek texts from the second and third centuries, survivors from a more extensive literature, known as Hermetica." Isn't that quote correct? If there must be two articles, then each must be complete. It's unwise to cannibalize Wikipedia articles. --Wetman 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected it back, as there's more info here on Hermetica in general than in the other article, and the same info word-for-word from the other article is already here. MSJapan 02:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this discussion. Hermetica is a broader term than Corpus Hermeticum. CH is one distinct collection of 17 texts, whilst the category Hermetica also includes other texts as Asclepius, Emerald Tablet, The Eighth Reveals the Ninth, Kore Kosmou etc. Plus: there is also an interwikiproblem: some wp editions have an article on CH, some on Hermetica and (only?) nl:wp has to separate articles. Since en:wp is the wikipedia mother ship, it would be a great benefit for clarity in other language editions definitions of this matter (and for the iw) if these two terms to be separated and described separately. Bw Orland (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orland. Corpus Hermeticum should be a separate article. Can it be split? Wiki-uk (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just do it, Wiki-uk. --Orland (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is simply not enough sources to support the would-be content for Corpus Hermeticum. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants to read an article about the book corpus hermeticum, I suggest the german wikipedia page. There one can also find a list of translations into other languages with authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8E0:2042:1C00:F478:7931:8898:6E40 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Authorship and audience

Doesn't the "Authorship and audience" section statement, "the pseudonymous authors considered themselves Egyptians rather than Alexandrian Greeks," seem to conflict with the rest of the article which repeatedly stresses portions are "Greek texts" with links to prior Greek movements. If it was written by Egyptians who considered themselves Egyptians, and it was written in Egypt, then would it not be Egyptian despite what was written in the Greek language? --151.201.147.150 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Cudworth

It seems to me that there ought at least to be a mention of Ralph Cudworth, (True Intellectual System of the Universe 1678). That Casaubon could be mentioned at length with no consideration given to Cudworth's rebuttal seems inexplicable to me. As Egyptologist Jan Assmann has argued (Moses the Egyptian 1997), Cudworth successfully defended the Corpus Hermeticum against Casaubon's accusations of forgery. There is a great deal that can be said about the corpus that is not said in this article as it stands. StevenBTodd (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Cudworth is indeed correct.)--Wetman (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Original text

Does anyone know where I could find a copy of the original Greek text of the Corpus Hermeticum? If there is a website that contains it the link could be added here also. - Tomispev (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Some similarities between the Demotic texts and Platonic philosophy could be the result of Plato and his followers' having drawn on Egyptian sources.[13][14]" - Bernal (who makes up the two citations) is widely discredited and rejected by most, if not all academic historians. There is no conspiracy - Platonism was not created in Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.65.179 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hermetica/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Start-class== It's too big for stub, but too vague to be anything except a start article. There's a lot more to be done here, including adding more refs, fleshing out chapters, and doing more on the history of Hermetic texts in general. MSJapan 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) The word pagan needs to be removed from the text. It inserts a bias with the aim toward diminishing the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CA6:A100:D92D:61D6:2921:40CF (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Substituted at 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hermetica and biblical influence?

I have a problem with one thing this article says. According to it, "There are significant differences:[3] the Hermetica contain no explicit allusions to Biblical texts and are little concerned with Greek mythology or the technical minutiae of metaphysical Neoplatonism." It claims that there are no explicit allusions of the Hermetica to biblical texts, however, Everett Ferguson writes "Jewish influence is certain in the Hermetica, where Genesis 1:28 is cited. Christian contacts are more indirect. The Hermetic doctrine represented a small circle of students, and its redemption was individual. The new life in Hermeticism, as in some forms of Gnosticism, raised the person above the need for moral endeavor, whereas in Christianity it equipped the person for the moral struggle." So it looks like the claim is inaccurate, since the Hermetica does allude to and quote a biblical text (namely, Genesis 1:28).

After a bit of time, I was able to trace this claim to Brian Copernhaver's Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a new English translation with notes and introduction, pg. 112. Anyone have a problem with me revising this part of the article? 70.27.185.214 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Rewritten version

Very well done, Apaugasma! I have one question: are modern works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, such as the Kybalion from 1908 or The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean from the 1930s) ever counted as "Hemetica"? A. Parrot (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and thank you also for reviewing the article and adding redirects!

I've also recently rewritten our article on the The Kybalion, and I must say that it was depressingly hard to find any decent source on it. I spent the better part of a day just searching for such a source, and despite my considerable heuristic skills, the only semi-decent result I could come up with was Horowitz, Mitch 2019. “The New Age and Gnosticism: Terms of Commonality” in: Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies, 4(2), pp. 191–215 (pp. 193-198 on the Kybalion). Now Mitch Horowitz, aptly described here on Wikipedia as "an American writer in occult and esoteric themes", seems quite ignorant about the Hermetica (and even more about ancient philosophy in general), but his basic observations appear to be generally accurate. He has called the Kybalion "a modern Hermetic adaptation" (Horowitz 2019, p. 194), which seems fair enough a description.

Personally, I think that, given the general nature of the Hermetica as widely divergent pseudepigrapha, any text which claims to convey the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus may be fairly counted as belonging to it, including the Kybalion (as for The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean, I must confess that I do not know it). However, it is absolutely useful to discriminate between the historical Hermetica, which were all written within an intellectual frame of reference where the authoritative sources of knowledge were effectively ancient (the treatises of the Corpus Hermeticum were written 500-700 years after Plato and Zeno of Citium!), and the modern Hermetica, which are written against the backdrop of modern historiographical, philological, anthropological, and scientific knowledge. Moreover, as far as I know, there is a gap of 700 years between the latest of the historical Hermetica (the Kitāb fi zajr al-nafs or "The Book of the Rebuke of the Soul", twelfth century), and the first modern one (the Kybalion, 1908). This discontinuity must be noted. Accordingly, I have classified the Kybalion under "Modern offshoots" in the Hermeticism template (see also my discussion with myself at its talk page).

But there is of course a wider problem, which is that scholarly literature on modern Hermetica is quasi non-existent. To answer your actual question: no, works like the Kybalion are never counted as Hermetica, but that is just because they are never counted at all, that is, they are nearly completely ignored by modern scholars. I'm hopeful that this will change in the foreseeable future, but as long as it is like this, we have no material to work with here. Perhaps one day this article will contain a subsection called 'Modern Hermetica', or 'Neo-Hermetic writings', or whatever name future scholars will give to it, but for now this does not seem to be a valid option.

Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. From the handful of sources I have seen in the field of esoteric studies, I've gathered that the field is in its infancy, so I'm not surprised. Regarding the Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean, I don't know much about it either, but I've seen references to it here and there, including in a very old revision of the article on Thoth. Apparently it was written by somebody named Claude Doggins who called himself Maurice Doreal. If you're curious, here is a copy. A. Parrot (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

To boldface or not to boldface: it is a question

@GPinkerton and Srnec:

When I first rewrote this article, I consistently used boldface for the names of individual Hermetica, because I reckoned that some people might be looking for information on a specific Hermeticum, who could then quickly find it by scanning for bold text. This is also important because in some cases, redirects to individual Hermetica (e.g., Kore kosmou) point to a section which does not have that name in its title (in this case, 'Stobaean excerpts').

It appears that you did not like so much boldface. Perhaps now that I've explained the rationale for this, you think of it differently?

In any case, at least we should make sure that our use of boldface is consistent. As the article stands now, it is not:

• Why have Corpus Hermeticum and Asclepius in bold in the lead, but Emerald Tablet not?
• Why have the Greek astrological Hermetica in bold, but the Greek magical Hermetica not?
• Why have all the Arabic alchemical Hermetica in bold, except for the Emerald Tablet?
• Etc.

So how should we go about this?

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, for policy, see MOS:BOLD. Generally, links to other articles ought not to be in bold (though links to sections on the same pages should be) and generally, if there is a redirect to a section or an article, the title of that redirect ought to be in bold so that the reader knows they've been redirected to the right place. GPinkerton (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So: because the Emerald Tablet has its own page, it ought not to be in bold, but because no article exists for the Ascelpius, the link redirects to the section on the same page, so a bolded link is correct. GPinkerton (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't find anything in MOS:BOLD about links not being supposed to be put in bold, nor about links to sections on the same pages having to be in bold (self links automatically appear in bold, but links to sections are not self links).

But even quite apart from guidelines, we should also use common copy-editing sense, which puts consistency before everything:

I think we should either not use boldface for anything at all apart from the title in the lead and the titles of redirects like Kore kosmou (there are quite a few more), or use it consistently when listing the names of the individual Hermetica.

Furthermore, we should decide whether to put the names of the three most famous Hermetica in the lead in bold, or not (note that no redirects point to the lead, but that many people are probably looking for one of those three).

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Stobaeus's Macedonia

I've switched around the wording for Macedonia and removed the reference to "northern Greece", which, though in the citation, is a little misleading or anachronistic (i.e., it was northern "Greece" then but not now). Stobi was capital of Macedonia II Salutaris in Stobaeus's day, and that province is mostly where the Republic of North Macedonia is now, and not where Greek Macedonia is (in northern Greece). GPinkerton (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that out! However, while retaining the link to Macedonia Salutaris, I have changed the text itself to "Macedonia" again, to keep it simple and to avoid information overload for the average reader. Thanks again, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, that's OK, thank the faceless IP that deleted the reference to Greece in the first place. Someone would have done it eventually; certain toponyms arouse great passions in the Balkans. (As elsewhere.) GPinkerton (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maxwell Lewis Latham's translation

@Anglyn: as pointed out to you a year ago by Ian.thomson (courtesy ping, though Ian.thomson has not been very active lately), you can wait until Maxwell Lewis Latham does gain some scholarly credentials, for example by publishing papers, chapters, or monographs on the subject in what we do recognize here as reliable sources. Or –even better– you can wait until his translation gets cited and/or reviewed by subject specialists (as it certainly will if it has any scholarly value). Until then, however, we cannot include his translation here, since we have nothing indicating his reliability (having an MA is not a sufficient criterium). You can ask other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about this if you wish.

On another note: if you have any personal connection with Maxwell Lewis Latham, it is very important that you declare this at your user page, and try to avoid editing articles related to him. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. (you can cite him though: see the section 'Citing yourself', which of course also applies to people you know)

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: It's "criterion" (it comes from the Ancient Greek) - amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglyn (talk • contribs) 06:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Per this diff at ANI they're claiming to be this Latham fellow. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead section footnotes

It seems to me that many of the notes in the lead section can and should be placed in the article body instead. The purpose of a lead section is to summarize the contents of the article body (which is why lead sections don't even need to have citations, because they're summarizing the cited text in the body), so having topics mentioned only in notes in the lead section is strange. E.g., the notes say Festugière shaped the mid-20th-century consensus that Egyptian influence on the Hermetica was minimal, and that Mahé was one of the first people to start moving the consensus in away from that position. Yet neither Festugière nor Mahé are mentioned in the section on the history of scholarship, where it's very reasonable to expect them to be. A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I wrote things this way because while I didn't dig deep enough to write whole sections on some material, I still thought it important enough to include it in (the footnotes to) an over-sized lead. Better to include the info this way than not at all. But yes, obviously this is not according to established standards, and less than ideal for sure. I would add that most of the info on the two categories of Hermetica should be moved to its own section, which in turn should be expanded a little and then summarized in the lead.

If you feel like doing so, please try and WP:FIXIT yourself. The 'History of scholarship' section definitely is the one most in need of attention. If not, I'm sure someone will when expanding and rewriting some of this stuff in the future. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it took me nearly a year to find the time to focus on this, but I've finally expanded the section and removed some of the notes in the lead that are no longer needed. See what you think. A. Parrot (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's looking much better now, thanks for that! I've tweaked it just a little more. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Fowden's hermetica book

Moved from User talk:Apaugasma

In response to your revert of my edit on the entry "Hermetica", Garth Fowden writes (p. 4 of reference): "...but the most spectacular papyrological addition to our knowledge and one which has affected every aspect of the study of Hermetism was made in 1945 with the discovery...near the hamlet of Hamra Duth." In reference to the Nag Hammadi library, Fowden mentions the other texts in the collection which have doctrinal parallels with "these three indisputably Hermetic tractates, but none claims to be Hermetic or makes use of the Hermetic dramatis personae". I guess the listing is a hallmark of original texts? Here he is talking about the other eight texts instead of the three so perhaps I was misreading him and the three include authorship claims and the listing. Fowden continues to muse on the compilation. My point is to follow Fowden in asserting the major contribution of Nag Hammadi discovery. Church of the Rain (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My source discusses dramatis personae in pp. 32-35 if you have a copy. Fowden simply states the listing of the gods is important as the text is a revelation from them. See p. 32 "First of all, the dramatis persone. The Hermetica are presented as revelations of divine truth, not as the product of human reason; and in the philosophical as in the technical texts those who do the revealing are the typical deities of Graeco-Egyptian syncretism..." Here is another source that should be considered in order to make further edits. See Kingsley, Peter. “Poimandres: The Etymology of the Name and the Origins of the Hermetica.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. 56, 1993, pp. 1–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/751362. Accessed 24 June 2023. --Church of the Rain (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Church of the Rain! Perhaps this should have been posted on Talk:Hermetica. Yes, the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in general was one of the most important finds in the 20th century, especially for our knowledge of Gnosticism. Before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library Gnosticism was practically only known from very hostile sources such as the Church Fathers, so the discovery of tens of original texts written by Gnostics themselves revolutionized our understanding.

With respect to Hermeticism, however, we already had a large amount of texts written by Hermeticists themselves, and the three Hermetic texts in the Nag Hammadi library are not especially important. The The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth contains some interesting new material, but in the end it's still very much a gradual contribution to our knowledge rather than a fundamental one. When Fowden 1986 p. 4 says that the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Hermetica represents "the most spectacular papyrological addition to our knowledge" it's important to understand that he is only talking about papyrological additions, comparing the Nag Hammadi texts to the paltry Oxford and Vienna fragments, not to the known Hermetica as a whole. Arguably the work done by Jean-Pierre Mahé on Armenian texts such as the Definitions of Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius was a much more important development in the 20th-century study of Hermeticism, and the countless unstudied Arabic Hermetic texts will also be much more crucial for improving our understanding of Hermeticism than anything in the Nag Hammadi library.

Yes, the dramatis personae of the Hermetica (Hermes Trismegistus, Asclepius, Tat, Agathos Daimon, Poimandres, etc.) in general do deserve some discussion in the article, somewhere. But any such discussion should be clear about the fact that it is discussing the dramatis personae, and why that is important. It has nothing to do with the Nag Hammadi findings. As you seem to have gathered by now, Fowden only incidentally mentioned that, although some other texts in the Nad Hammadi library share some doctrinal similarities with Hermeticism, they can't be considered Hermetic because none of the usual dramatis personae appear in them. It probably helps to know that scholars define 'Hermetic' as 'anything attributed to Hermes Trismegistus': if there's no Hermes in a text, it's generally not reckoned among the Hermetica.

Your edit was missing all of that context, and came out as quite confused and confusing because of this. It helps to know the subject when you're editing, and with complex topics such as this one, background knowledge is often crucial. I've added the Kingsley source you suggested to the bibliography, thanks for that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Moved from User talk: Apaugasma by Church of the Rain (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)