Talk:Zosimos of Panopolis

Critical remark
This article appears to be based on Jung's very imperfect understanding of Zosimus: imperfect both becuase of the bais of Jung's interpretation and because of its ignorance of the extant corups of Zosimus' works. In fact there survives in the original Greek a complete treatise by Zosimus, On the Letter Omega, which is not mentioned in the article. To describe Zosimus as a 'Gnsoic mystic' after the precision of understanding of what Gnosticism is and is not in the light of the last half century of scholarship is laughable. The whole article needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.49.132 (talk • contribs)
 * Dear sir or madam, we know that wikipedia is imperfect in many places. Thank you fo criticism, but it would be much more useful if you actually edited the artcle referring to more recent scholar sources (providein quots and reference, per wikipedia's policies, see Attribution) (it is quite understandable that historians know more since Jung's times). Mukadderat 03:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A fuller translation is under way in the very capable hands of members of the Warburg Institute's academic body. As an occasional contributor to the work, it seems to me that this is something of an anachronous red herring, a commentator wagging the original dog, so better placed under Jungian philosophy somewhere and merely referred to here under the more usual See Also section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.30.185 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have something to add, add it. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

too much vison ?
I think that the vision section could be shortened up.J8079s (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Picatrix
He is referenced in Picatrix, the most influential book for western magic. Perhaps this could be included somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.244.136 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Zosimus the alchemist actually the same as Zosimus the gnostic
I read this article and found myself wondering whether we have two people confused together here. The first is the alchemical writer; the second is the author of the Nag Hammadi gnostic text?

I've never researched it, but I ask the question. Box2112 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nag Hammadi texts were a collection of various texts by various authors. Not all Gnostic works were includes in the Nag Hammadi codexes, and not everything that was in there was Gnostic (something by Plato was in there, and some works that affirmed the crucifixion, incarnation, and the sanctity of physical life).  I can't find anything about a work relating to any Zosimos in the Nag Hammadi Codexes.  There was a work titles Zostrianos in the NGC, maybe you have those confused?  Also, Zosimos wrote at a time when Gnosticism and Alchemy kinda overlapped. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is trying to say that the fallen-angels-teaching-metallurgy legend appears in Gnostic texts (i.e., The Apocryphon of John), not that Zosimos wrote that particular text. Perhaps that needs to be rephrased. Kramden (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, that's more specifically an Enochian idea than a Gnostic one. Some of the Gnostics did believe that, but others ignored it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

About Zosimos being a "Greek" or "Egyptian-born Greek" alchemist
This is what the sources say:


 * Zosimos of Panopolis was perhaps the most important of the Graeco-Egyptian alchemists. ( p. 88)
 * The Egyptian alchemist Zosimos of Panopolis was a pivotal figure in the history of Greek alchemy. ( p. 3)
 * These writings come from a Greco-Egyptian alchemist [...]: Zosimos of Panopolis. ( p. 14)
 * [...] in a Zosimos text just recently identified, the Egyptian admits freely that [...]

Now the sources also standardly speak of Greek alchemy (e.g., the same as quoted above), but Bink Hallum describes scholarly practice well when he notes:

"When I use the terms Greek, Syriac and Arabic to describe authors and traditions, I mean to describe only the language in which the author so described predominately wrote, or the language in which the texts that make up a tradition are written. I do not mean to imply that the authors who contributed to or those who worked within a certain tradition were ethnically Greeks, Syrians or Arabs; the so-called Greek alchemists were mostly natives of Egypt of Hellenic, Egyptian and Jewish descent and one of the foremost so-called Arab alchemists, al-Rāzī, was of Persian origins. ( p. 17)"

In this sense, you will find also Zosimos sometimes described as a Greek alchemist, but this only refers to the language of his writings. As mentions, Greek was the language both of the earliest alchemical texts and of literate Greco-Roman Egypt. When it comes to Zosimos actual background, Garth Fowden notes that almost no information has survived about the external incidents of his life. ( p. 120). In other words, his ethnicity, like most things relating to his life, is unknown. All sources cited agree, however, that he was born in Panopolis (Akhmim) and that he wrote in Greek, hence why they call him "Egyptian" or "Greco-Egyptian".

Given all of the above, I see no reason to call Zosimos a "Greek" or "Egyptian-born Greek" alchemist in the lead. I prefer the term "Greco-Egyptian", which is used most often by the sources and which expresses the uncertainty well. , what do you think? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Then find sources that say the correct things Tonycrisos (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * it is not the duty of other editors to find sources for what you think to be correct. If you don't want to discuss this, you shouldn't be editing the article as you did here; please read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Don't do this again, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 09:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * By reproducing what someone else said via appropriate bibliography it doesn’t make it correct. As a scholar I know that I can find a citation to support anything and on any subject out there.
 * Secondly I will provide you with a citation if that is the only issue.
 * Thirdly stop trying to re-write my people’s history and narrative. You don’t represent the Greek people and tradition or Greek Alchemy in any shape and form, regardless of how many articles you write about these subjects or us.  Not to mention that half of the article in dispute is about C. Jung which is totally irrelevant and anachronistic.  Tonycrisos (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If you have a citation, please do provide it, so we can discuss it here on the talk page. By the way, I agree that the Jungian interpretation is anachronistic and should receive much less space. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Below you can find the citation as promised. So consider revising Zosimos' identity from "Greco-Egyption" to Greek. Thank you in advance.

Zosimus from Hermetic Fragments from Various Authors (FH 1–45) Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2018

Zosimus. (n.d.). Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/hermetica-ii/zosimus/1F7FD482A6B309BEC6C03EC2121A3AC7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonycrisos (talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As I explained to you above, scholars regularly refer to "Greek alchemy" for all alchemy written in Greek, regardless of the ethnic background of its authors, just like they use "Arabic alchemy" for all alchemy written in Arabic (including, e.g., the alchemy of a Persian like Abu Bakr al-Razi). What Litwa 2018, p. 196 is doing here in calling Zosimos "a pioneering Greek alchemist" is precisely what Hallum 2008 explains in his note on p. 17 (see the indented quote above): it refers to the language in which he wrote, not his ethnic background. This is a scholarly convention which I've amply documented above. Scholarly consensus is that we know next to nothing about his life and background, and unless a new source pops up which explicitly deals with that and gets accepted by other scholars, this is the consensus we will base our article on here. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

When did he live?
Some wikis say he lived between 350 and 420 AD, that's 4th and 5th century. This article says 2nd and 3rd century. Ponor (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Reputable scholars who have seriously studied the sources are united in saying he flourished ca. 300, not ca. 400. The dating in the article is correct.Ajrocke (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * IDK. More sources should be checked, as it may happen that some other reputable scholars place Zosimos a century earlier or later. Mertens 2002 in the linked article, perhaps? Ponor (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)