Talk:Hermetica

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  To different difinitions of "hermetically sealed" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yoshi's Cookie

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree with Orland. Corpus Hermeticum should be a separate article. Can it be split? Wiki-uk (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do it, Wiki-uk. --Orland (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Corpus Hermeticum info to its own article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Authorship and audience 

message: 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)
replies: text: (Cudworth is indeed correct.)--Wetman (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ralph Cudworth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original text 

message: Substituted at 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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."(Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity (2003), pg. 295.) 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)
thread_title:  Hermetica and biblical influence? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Stobaeus's Macedonia 

message: as pointed out to you a year ago by  (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)
replies: text: Per this diff at ANI they're claiming to be this Latham fellow. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxwell Lewis Latham's translation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fowden's hermetica book