The Hypostasis of the Archons 1–18 Revisited: The Genesis Account of the Good Creation as a Trap by the Jealous Demiurge

Abstract

The confrontation between Greek philosophy and the Biblical heritage has led to a wealth of different currents, varying from Christian and Jewish neo-Platonism to religious convictions that proclaim a complete rupture between creation and the highest hidden god. Although this rupture has its roots in a Platonic concept of a demiurge who as a lower divinity is supposed to be responsible for creation, in Gnosticism this chasm has been deepened to become no less than an abhorrence for embodied “material” existence, together with sheer contempt for the demiurge who is described as jealous, foolish and blind. Freeing the divine element/spark from the imprisonment in matter, an imprisonment concocted by this jealous demiurge, is the general aim of many Gnostic tracts. In the Hypostasis of the Archons, wisdom from above, surprisingly often gendered as female, but not as embodied, serves as a redeemer figure, named Sophia. This has led to an exegesis of revolt in which Eve becomes the source of this higher Wisdom, strengthened by the serpent of the Biblical story of Paradise, who likewise symbolizes this higher Wisdom.

1. Introduction

The confrontation between Greek philosophy and the Biblical heritage has led to a wealth of different currents, varying from Christian and Jewish Middle-Platonism to religious convictions that proclaim a complete rupture between creation and the highest hidden god. This rupture has its roots in the Platonic concept of a demiurge, who, as a lower divinity, is supposed to be responsible for creation. In Gnosticism, this rupture has been deepened to become no less than an abhorrence for embodied “material” existence, together with sheer contempt for the demiurge, who is described as jealous, foolish, and blind. Freeing the divine element/spark from the imprisonment in matter, an imprisonment concocted by this jealous demiurge, is the general aim of many Gnostic tracts. Wisdom from above, surprisingly often gendered as female, serves as a redeemer figure named Sophia. This has led to an exegesis of revolt in which Eve, in one way or another, becomes the source of this higher Wisdom, sometimes strengthened by the serpent of the Biblical story of Paradise, who likewise symbolizes this higher Wisdom.

Having said this, we should realize that the description of this state of affairs is both too general and too specific. A major problem in Gnostic studies concerns the heterogeneous character of the documents. The tractates often resist a synthesis into a coherent whole, and even one single document may show traces of revision and addition. This has led some scholars to doubt the usefulness of the qualification “Gnostic”, as an indication of a collective and coherent current altogether. Hence, clarifying a Gnostic text by referring to other Gnostic texts is a tricky business. Hence, we opt for a detailed analysis rather than for a synthetic overview. Still, we will have occasion to point to Jewish backgrounds, especially those of the Jewish philosopher Philo, who embodies himself as a mighty synthesis of Greek and Biblical thought. In addition, even midrash plays a role; all this is coupled with a possibly Christian outlook, although that also remains a matter of debate. Although the word “syncretism” is too normative to be useful, the variety of influences does not fail to baffle the reader.

The Hypostasis of the Archons is part of the Nag Hammadi codices, i.e., manuscripts from the fourth century CE in Coptic language, but translated from Greek texts from the second century onward. Some of these texts were already known by accounts of Church fathers, which were surprisingly correct as to the textual accounts. Our document, probably testifying of a quite early layer of Gnosticism, shares some general characteristics with the majority of Gnostic texts such as: Considering bodily existence as a trap of ignorance inflicted by a Demiurge/creator, which prevents a spiritual redemption and the access to knowledge of the true, invisible highest God. These Gnostic characteristics result in a revolutionary change in the interpretation of Scripture, especially of the book of Genesis. It is no exaggeration to state that the Gnostic exegesis of Scripture constitutes one of the most breathtaking confrontations between two highly divergent trains of thought: the Biblical realm, Greek philosophy, and mystery religions, merged with Jewish and Christian interpretations in the world of late Antiquity.

Here is an attempt to describe Gnosticism as a historical phenomenon, while ignoring the many modern appropriations of it: in Gnosticism, Greek concepts of the demiurge are coupled with a highly mythical Weltanschauung, in which both Jewish and Christian influences can be detected, although this results in polytheistic Gnostic hermeneutics of Scripture.

Our text testifies, however, of a bewildering variety, in which “heroes” become “villains”, gods become demons, and vice versa, in a continuous process of revision and re-interpretation. Although the Gnostic hermeneutics of the Bible often presuppose a gap between the Hebrew (Greek) Bible and the New Testament, corresponding with the metaphysical split between the demiurge/creator revealing the commandments on the one hand and the Father of Jesus Christ on the other hand, It would be wrong to attribute a wholesale rejection of the Hebrew Bible to Gnosticism, because it rather claims to unearth the genuine Gnosis from the Biblical Genesis account. The hermeneutical presuppositions of Gnosticism show an astonishing variety, from an allegorical approach similar to Philo and some Church Fathers to an outright rejection of the plain message of the Bible by embracing the Biblical villains such as Cain and Judas. This is why I propose instead to deal with one text only, and even with an excerpt of it, which can plausibly be considered a unit without additions and revisions, or at least with a minimum of them. This method, shortly called “close reading”, will result in a re-reading, which, to my expectation, may avoid some pitfalls and confusions found in previous studies. The excerpt chosen is from the tractate The nature of the archons, or, as it is also called, The hypostasis of the archons, or The reality of the rulers (NHC II, 4).1

The first part of HypArch relates the creation of human beings and the Paradise story, in which Wisdom/Sophia plays a decisive role as antagonist of the Demiurge/creator. After that, the birth of the second generation follows: Cain, Abel, Seth, and the female protagonist, not known by name in the Bible: Norea > All these protagonists appear in a specific Gnostic hermeneutics, ending with Noah building the ark and with the persecution of Norea by the wicked archons. The second part, Norea’s rescue by the great angel Eleleth, introduces a first-person account of Norea, who relates what the angel Eleleth has told her.2 The tractate consists probably of at least two parts joined together. Possibly, in between the two parts an intermezzo can be distinguished in which the burning of the ark takes place. Without deciding about the exact redaction history, we will deal with the first part only, that is, until the revelation by the angel Eleleth. Our aim is to chart the different dramatis personae in detail in order to document the role of Wisdom in this “exegesis of revolt”. The document is couched in the style of a letter, directed to someone who has inquired about the “true nature of the authorities/archons”.

2. A Close Reading of HypArch 1–183

The opening is the most explicitly Christian part of the tractate, consisting as it does of a loose quotation from Ef. 6:12. It makes clear that for the author of HypAr, the struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the powers of the cosmos and spiritual rulers of evil. Spiritual is used here in the sense of “invisible”.

Although B. Barc, L’Hypostase des Archons, 4–5, states that HypArch opens with an anthropogony rather than with a theogony, we first come across different titles for gods or invisible powers:

2.1. The Invisible Powers

The Spirit of the Father of Truth4 is the highest god who sends his virgin Spirit to humankind to convey a spiritual status. Whatever happens, even negative actions, is according to the will of the Father.5

The Pistis Sophia likewise belongs to the spiritual realm. Only in the second part of HypArch does it become clear that she had wished to make something without her consort, which resulted in an “abortion”, Samael, the wicked demiurge. Still, she (or the Incorruptibility) wished to unite the All with the Light (HypArch 5).

The Chief (PNOQ)6 of the Cosmos, who is blind and foolish (SAKLA), is also called Samael (explained as: god of the blind, i.e., blind to the spiritual reality).7 He exclaims: “I am god, there is no other” (Isaiah 45:6), but is corrected by a voice from the Incorruptibility: “You are mistaken, Samael” (HypArch 2). Samael’s mother, Pistis Sophia, has persecuted him as far as the chaos and the abyss and has appointed for the sons of Samael a fixed place.8

The Incorruptibility (TMENTATTAKO) belongs to the highest heavenly realm and appears to be female. She wants to join the Light with the All. The Archons (NARCHŌN) fall in love with her image in the water.9 Next to the Archons are Authorities (NEXOUSIA) of Darkness, who possess a psychic nature, i.e., are devoid of spiritual essence. The Archons, possibly identical with these Authorities of Darkness, are identified in the Biblical text of Genesis because of the plural used there (1:26; 11:7).10 However, this plural is not only applied to deliberations about the creation of the human being (HypArch 5), but also to other collective deliberations by the Archons, such as bringing a deep sleep over Adam (HypArch 8), sowing their seed in the woman (HypArch 8), and causing the Flood (HypArch 13). They continuously mistake the material for the spiritual, the shadow for the light, and the reflection for the reality.

The Archon of the Powers (PARCHŌN N N-DYNAMIS) is not identical with Samael/Sakla but appears to be an intermediate god. In our excerpt, he recommends the building of the ark (HypArch 13).11 Not to be confused with the Chief of the Archons.

The Chief of the Archons (PNOQ N-NARCHŌN) is the one who did not know where Adam was (HypArch 10). I assume he is identical with Samael. Note that the god who asked Cain: “Where is your brother Abel?” is nót accused of ignorance.

The Archons, themselves psychic, create the human being after their image and likeness, including androgyny.12 The human being, however, remains merely psychic until the Spirit enters into him.

2.2. The Visible Agents and the Human Beings

The name Adam reminds me of Adamas, earth; he has been created by the Archons from earth, and by blowing in his face, Samael or the Archons make him psychic.

The Rulers laid plans and said, “Come, let us create a man that will be soil from the earth." They modeled their creature as one wholly of the earth. Now the Rulers ... body ... they have ... female ... is ... face(s) are bestial. They took some [soil] from the earth and modeled their [Man] after their body and [after the Image] of God that had appeared [to them] in the waters.

(HypArch 5)

In contrast with Philo, the first account of the creation of the human being (Gen 1:26) is in HypArch devoid of a spiritual dimension, obviously because of the plural: “Let us make the human being in our image and likeness”, which is taken to refer to the wicked archons. In addition, our tractate does not speak about a spiritual Adam connected to the light of the first day.13 Apparently, the creation of the human being in Gen 1:26, “in the image of god/gods”, has been conflated with the creation of the human being from the soil of the earth (Gen 2:7).

They said, “C[ome, let] us lay hold of it by means of the form that we have modeled, [so that] it may see its male counterpart [...], and we may seize it with the form that we have modeled”–not understanding the force of God, because of their powerlessness. And he breathed into his face; and the man came to have a soul and remained upon the ground many days. But they could not make him arise because of their powerlessness. Like storm winds they persisted in blowing, that they might try to capture that image, which had appeared to them in the Waters. And they did not know the identity of its power.

(HypArch 5)

Apparently, the arrogant exclamation of the Chief of the Archons to be the only god did not challenge the First Spiritual Adam, about whom our text does not know. The exclamation was not directed to the human being but to the supreme god. Nor is there a connection between a First Spiritual Adam and the Biblical Spirit hovering over the waters.14 However, only after the moment of entering of the Spirit into Adam, alluded to in Gen 2:7b (whereas 2:7a remains the doings of the Demiurge), Adam becomes spiritual.

Now all these things came to pass by the will of the Father of the Entirety. Afterwards, the Spirit saw the soul-endowed Man upon the ground. And the Spirit came forth from the Adamantine Land; it descended and came to dwell within him, and that Man became a living soul.

(HypArch 6)

From then on, it is clear that Adam is a primordial human being, embodying both male and female. The Archons place Adam in paradise and forbid him to eat or even touch the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. After that, the birth of a female entity is described as derived from the androgynous human being. The Archons (plural) bring a sleep (ignorance) over androgynous Adam and open his side, by which they release the Living Woman, Mother of the Living, also called the Spiritual Woman (HypArch 8). She is Eve.15

Due to this “operation” by the Archons, Adam becomes psychic; he has lost his Spiritual Female Principle.16 Adam is now called “their Adam”, namely of the Archons (HypArch 8). The Archons start to persecute the Spiritual Woman, but in vain.

They said to one another, “Come, let us sow our seed in her," and they pursued her. And she laughed at them for their witlessness and their blindness; and in their clutches she became a tree, and left before them her shadowy reflection resembling herself; and they defiled it foully.–And they defiled the form that she had stamped in her likeness, so that by the form they had modeled, together with their own image, they made themselves liable to condemnation.

(HypArch 8)

The Spiritual Female Principle is called the mirror image of Adam; being persecuted by the Authorities (probably identical with the Archons), she transforms into a tree.17 Note that the Tree of Knowledge does not offer a spiritual identity but only insight into the deplorable psychic existence. The Authorities (plural) do not catch Eve but only get hold of her shadow, which they pollute.

After this, the serpent enters the stage. It is explicitly stated that the serpent is an animal (HypArch 9).18 However, the Female Spiritual Principle has entered into the serpent, which explains why the serpent is called the Instructor (PREFTAMO). The serpent/Instructor communicates true knowledge.19

There is also a carnal (SARKIKE) woman, who is never called Eve in our tractate.20 The serpent talks to this carnal woman, who apparently possesses the same status as the carnal Adam after the Female Spiritual Principle had left him. Both are also considered psychic, and in any case, not spiritual. Our text does not clearly distinguish between psychic and carnal, and a tripartite division of human natures, familiar in other Gnostic tractates, is not clearly attested here.

The Female Instructor leaves the serpent, who remains behind as an earthly being.

2.3. Interactions between the Human Beings and the Invisible Agents

The Chief Ruler of the Archons (also called Archon or arrogant Archon) enters the stage, showing his ignorance by asking: “Adam, where are you?” (HypArch 10).21

The cursing of the woman and the serpent (who, without Instructor, is a mere shadow of the serpent with Instructor) is performed by the Archons (plural) (HypArch 10). Adam’s cursing is not explicitly mentioned, but probably implicated.

The curse on the serpent will be lifted by the Perfect Man (PTELEIOS N-RŌME) (HypArch 10). Note that the serpent will not be crushed, as is stated in Gen 3:15, which, according to Christian interpretation, will be performed by Christ or by the virgin Mary.22 This is the only time the Perfect Man, possibly Christ, is mentioned. The gap between the Hebrew Bible and the gospel, corresponding with a metaphysical split between the creator and the Father of Jesus Christ, in this Gnostic tractate, shows the tensions that are also known in Christianity.

Adam and his wife are banished from Paradise by the Archons. Interestingly, the “life of toil” was another device of the Archons to prevent the human beings from acquiring spiritual insight (HypArch 10). Only after this event, the name of Eve enters the stage; apparently, she must be distinguished from “the woman/the wife”.23

2.4. The Birth of the Second Generation of Human Beings

About Cain’s ancestry, it is stated the following: “she” (not Eve, she is not mentioned!) bore “their” son: Cain.24 With whom? Possibly not with Adam, but with some demonic power, conform the Biblical text about Cain Gen 4:1 and its manifold interpretations of heavenly/demonic offspring of Cain.25 God (PNOUTE) is not the begetter of Cain, but according to the Biblical text, he rejects Cain’s sacrifice. PNOUTE may be the Old Testament god of justice, but not the Demiurge. (HypArch 11; see hereafter under PNOUTE).

Abel’s ancestry differs from that of Cain: “After that26 he (i.e., Adam) knew his wife” (HypArch 11), a sentence that is generally interpreted as similar to Cain’s begetting, but that we interpret as different from the previous birth. Hence, Abel is the child of the (psychic) couple of Adam and his wife.

Eve is Mother of the Living (although not of all Living!) and Adam’s spiritual mirror image. After the killing of Abel, Adam knew his mirror image, Eve (HypArch 12).27 I assume that Eve is identical with the Spiritual Female Principle, to be distinguished from the psychic woman.

Seth is from above, born after Cain and Abel, but from different parents. His father is Adam, but his mother is Eve, not just the psychic woman. His birth is “thanks to god (PNOUTE)”, or: “through god” (HypArch 12).

God (PNOUTE) is the god who has called Cain to account and is involved in the birth of Seth, although Adam remains the begetter (HypArch 12). The word PNOUTE is new, apparently not identical with the divinities who have been active in our story until now. Although very succinctly stated, we assume that this god should be distinguished from the begetter of Cain. PNOUTE could be the god Sabaoth, who will play a role in the second part of the tractate, where his repentance and exaltation/enthronement are described. Sabaoth, whose enthronement takes place in the seventh heaven, should be distinguished from both the bad god Yaldabaoth and from the highest god, the Father of Truth, in the eighth heaven.28 However, we doubt the involvement of Sabaoth in the birth of Seth: the Spirit of the Father of Truth, mentioned in the beginning, may be more plausible here. Anyway, it seems beyond doubt that with Seth, the spiritual race has been restored. Whether the god Sabaoth can do that remains the question.

Hence, we have three combinations:29

• The woman and a possibly bad god or demon: Cain
• Adam and the woman: Abel
• Eve as the Spiritual Female Principle and Adam: Seth.

It is tempting to detect here three natures: the earthly or carnal (or “choic”), the psychic, and the spiritual, corresponding with Cain, Abel, and Seth, respectively. Our text is, however, too succinct to be sure of that and uses the qualifications carnal and psychic interchangeably. One should not project connotations of ontologically different races onto our text. As stated before, a tripartite division is not clearly attested in our text. Seth hardly plays a role in our text.30

Norea enters the stage. Eve becomes pregnant again and gives birth to Norea. Eve states: “He has given me a virgin as a help for many generations of mankind. This is the virgin who has not been polluted by the Powers”.31

We may assume that the Powers are identical with the Archons.32 Norea as “a help” may be a peculiar exegesis of the “help” God gives to Adam (Gen 2:18), by transposing this Biblical reference to the “help” to the scene after Paradise. It also proves that this gnostic text does not attribute everything that happens in the creation story and with the first human beings to the same evil Demiurge Samael/Yaldabaoth. And who is the god thanked by Eve for the birth of Norea? (Note that here Adam is not mentioned as the begetter). Some scholars likewise identify this god with Sabaoth, who, although belonging to the Old Testament, is not identical with the wicked Yaldabaoth (see Layton 1976, note 88). Norea is, however, “from above” and far above the Archons as the Rulers of Darkness. Hence, the Father of Truth (with his Spirit) may again be the best candidate as Norea’s begetter.

Although the Rulers of Darkness who persecute Norea in order to rape her exclaim that they have seduced Norea’s mother Eve as well (HypArch 15), it was their own mirror image and not Norea’s mother, who is the Spiritual Female Principle: Eve. By arguing that her mother has never been raped, Norea possibly refers to the birth of Cain. His birth may have been the result of “the woman” (not Norea’s mother!) being raped by the Archons. As stated before, it is vital not to confuse “the woman” with Eve as the Spiritual Female Principle. According to Luttikhuizen, the three children of Eve, Cain, Seth, and Eve’s daughter Norea are related to the three gods: The wicked cosmic god Yaldabaoth, the righteous cosmic god Sabaoth, and the hyper-cosmic god, the Father of Truth (Luttikhuizen 2003, p. 213). He fails to realize that in our text, Cain is not Eve’s son. In addition, note how he has skipped Abel here; only later on he deals with Abel as the son of the carnal/psychic Adam. In our perspective, however, only Seth and Norea are Eve’s children, and both constitute the spiritual race, be it Seth with Adam as begetter (and thanks to PNOUTE, the highest god), or Norea with the Father of Truth as begetter. Because both Seth and Norea have proceeded from the Female Spiritual Principle, i.e., Eve, as their mother, they both constitute the spiritual race. Does this lead to a fourfold division of races? Speculations about a fourfold division of races do exist (e.g., The Origin of the World 125), but our text does not explicitly speak about “races” and loyal to our method we do not want to import ideas from other documents into our text.33

Norea in our text is the sister of Seth and possibly also his wife. In the continuation of our text (HypArch 14), Norea (then suddenly called Orea), shows similarities with stories about the wife of Noah, which may be an indication of another narrative source.34 Apparently, traditions about the daughter of Eve and the wife of Noah have been conflated. The midrashic story of Noah’s wife setting fire to the ark has been transformed into a rebellious act against a lower deity. Whereas the Archons want to destroy all of creation by the Flood, the Ruler of the Forces (PARCHŌN N-NDYNAMIS)35 recommends to Noah to build the ark. In contrast with the Biblical text, however, Noaḥ’s wife is not included in the command to join the ark (HypArch 13). However, Orea’s resistance should be explained not out of complicity with the Archons; on the contrary, Orea acts on behalf of the supreme deity, the Father of Truth. That she wants to get aboard, and after that sets fire to the ark, may be part of the narrative in its untransformed form, but can also be explained as her initial wish to tell Noah about the highest deity.

After this story about the ark, which reads like an intermezzo, more or less interrupting the confrontation between Norea and the archons, we turn back to the main story. Norea is persecuted by the archons, who think that they have raped her mother Eve before (HypArch15).36 They are wrong because, as we have seen, Eve herself, as the Spiritual Principle, had already left behind the (psychic) woman. Perhaps one would have expected the spiritual status of Norea to render her immune to attacks by the archons, but she cries for help to the god of the entirety (PNOUTE M PTEREF) (HypArch 16). The Great Angel asks why she cries towards god (PNOUTE). Why does she act so boldly against the Holy Spirit? (HypArch17). Apparently the two divinities are closely related, although a complete identification seems to me inappropriate. Note that the Angel speaks about god/PNOUTE without qualification in reference to the highest god.37

Here, the transition to the revelation by the Great Angel Eleleth takes place (HypArch 17). Somewhere at that moment, the second part of the tractate begins, probably consisting of another document that has been attached to our story, in the form of a revelation of the angel Eleleth. In addition, the narrative shifts to a first-person account.38 Following our methodical principles, we end our analysis here.

3. Conclusions

The Hypostasis of the Archons should first and foremost be studied separately and with a view of its inner coherence. Although other texts, especially The Origin of the World, are often considered closely related, we have noted substantial differences that should not be conflated. Our analysis has demonstrated a strong inner coherence of the excerpt of HypArch, sometimes obscured by scholars by introducing heterogeneous elements such as a triad of human natures or even races, or by conflating Eve and “the woman”. Hence, in the first instance, HypArch should not be clarified with the help of OrWorld or other texts. Important gnostic themes such as the triads of races, a triadic nature of Adam, and a triadic hierarchy of gods are not clearly present in HypArch. Even the person of Seth, central in many gnostic texts, hardly plays a role here. On the contrary, the carnal and psychic natures are often mentioned together. This leads to the conclusion that in HypArch, there is a duality between the psychic and the spiritual rather than a triadic structure. Adam appears both in a psychic and in a spiritual state, whereas “the woman” embodies the psychic state and Eve the spiritual state. The divinities do form a triad:

• Yaldabaoth or the blind Demiurge/Sakla/Samael and his archons.39
• Sabaoth, the god of the Forces.
• The highest god, called the Father of Truth.

Note, however, that in our excerpt, the names of Yaldabaoth and Sabaoth as such do not feature. Whether this triad corresponds with creation, revelation of the law, and the Father of Jesus Christ, respectively, remains vague. Already in the stories of Creation, Paradise, and Flood, the Father of Truth does play a role. Again, a triadic division of history may be more explicit in other gnostic texts, like in the Letter to Flora, but apparently less so in HypArch.

Our short investigation made it already clear that HypArch (as with many other gnostic texts), shows idiosyncrasies that do not correspond with other gnostic texts, not even when these other texts have been used as a Vorlage. Even within one text, additions and redactions may blur the inner coherence. Hence, a close reading approach to each textual unit is indispensable and will yield the most satisfying results. Even within HypArch, the first part studied by us displayed elements and even specific names that do not feature in the second part, the revelation of the angel Eleleth. Only after assessing each textual unit separately should one proceed by comparing different texts in order to come to an overview of influences, mutual dependencies, and even more, of thorough differences. Umbrella concepts such as Sethian gnosis do not clarify much: Seth is undoubtedly spiritual but hardly plays a role, and there is no relationship with the expected Perfect Man.40 In non-gnostic texts, Seth also symbolizes an important “new beginning”, which makes it even more problematic to use “Sethian” as a characteristic for a branch of Gnosticism.

A final word about the content is appropriate here. The confrontation between Gnosis and the Bible has led to a total revolt against the Biblical message. The creator and the archons are consistently associated with evil and debauchery. The wisdom speculations “from above” are not soiled by bodily existence or by matter, except for the error of Pistis Sophia in creating an “abortion” of her own. The occurrence of female protagonists is remarkable, especially when it comes to the highest divine entities. Still, it is hard to make out whether this amounts to a positive view of women in this gnostic tractate. It seems that the more the bodily existence of female entities comes into view, the more negative the judgment. This “docetic” view holds good for male entities as well; hence, a positive view of embodied existence is hardly in order here. Possibly, an ascetic worldview, amounting to a wholesale rejection of sexuality but also to a freer role for women, could be the underlying message of this tractate. It is well known that asceticism and female advancement could go hand in hand. Christian celibacy has led to a remarkable rise of female mystics, hardly present in Judaism, which in the Rabbinic period tried to combat celibacy and strongly emphasized the importance of marriage.

On the other hand, the sexual union between man and woman may be seen as the restoration of the original androgynity (as in Jewish kabbalah), but also as a carnal caricature of that. The possibly complete indifference to marriage could also lead to sexual debauchery, of which Gnosticism offers a whole range, at least if we may believe the Church Fathers. However, utmost care is in order here, for these descriptions of sexual debauchery may be accusations of opponents, but without any foothold in reality. Regrettably, we do not know much about the social context of Gnosticism. We do know, however, that Desert Fathers and the first monks in the convent of Pachomius have enjoyed reading and translating these tracts. The polemics of the Church Fathers against Gnosticism are fully understandable in view of the sharp attack on the integrity of the God of creation, the Lawgiver, and the Father of Jesus Christ. Instead of continuity, Gnosticism propagates a metaphysical split, of which HypArch is an outspoken example. Still, the tensions within Christianity between the goodness of creation and the rejection of the material world41, between the commandments in the Hebrew Bible over against grace in the New Testament, fully warrant the location of Gnosticism within Christianity, be it on the fringe. Suffice it to conclude that the manifold transcendent manifestations of female nature without being incarnated as embodied existence is an undeniable aspect of this gnostic tract and may offer food for thought for Christian theology as well as for Judaism, seeing the Bible transformed in such a polemical way. The Wisdom from above renders earthly and bodily existence futile, if not a prison and a grave.

4. Translation of The Hypostasis of the Archons (Excerpt). (NHC II, 4, 1–18)42

• On account of the reality of the Authorities, inspired by the Spirit of the Father of Truth, the great apostle—referring to the “authorities of the darkness” (Coloss. 1:13)—told us that “our contest is not against flesh [and blood]; rather, the authorities of the universe and the spirits of wickedness” (Ef. 6:11–12). [I have] sent you this because you (sing.) inquire about the reality [of the] Authorities.
• Their chief is blind; [because of his] Power and his ignorance [and his] arrogance he said, with his [Power], “It is I who am God; there is none apart from me”. When he said this, he sinned against [the Entirety]. And this speech got up to Incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from Incorruptibility, saying, “You are mistaken, Samael”—which is, “god of the blind”.
• His thoughts became blind. And, having expelled his Power—that is, the blasphemy he had spoken—he pursued it down to Chaos and the Abyss, his mother, at the instigation of Faith-Wisdom (Pistis Sophia). And she established each of his offspring in conformity with its power—after the pattern of the realms that are above, for by starting from the invisible world, the visible world was invented.
• As Incorruptibility looked down into the region of the Waters, her image appeared in the Waters; and the Authorities of the Darkness became enamored of her. But they could not lay hold of that Image, which had appeared to them in the Waters, because of their weakness—since beings that merely possess a soul cannot lay hold of those that possess a Spirit—for they were from Below, while it was from Above.
• This is the reason why “Incorruptibility looked down into the region (etc.)”: so that, by the Father’s will, she might bring the Entirety into union with the light. The Rulers laid plans and said, “Come, let us create a man that will be soil from the earth”. They modeled their creature as one wholly of the earth. Now the Rulers ... body ... they have ... female ... is ... face(s) are bestial. They took some [soil] from the earth and modeled their [Man] after their body and [after the Image] of God that had appeared [to them] in the waters. They said, “C[ome, let] us lay hold of it by means of the form that we have modeled, [so that] it may see its male counterpart [...], and we may seize it with the form that we have modeled”—not understanding the force of God, because of their powerlessness. And he breathed into his face; and the man came to have a soul and remained upon the ground many days. But they could not make him arise because of their powerlessness. Like storm winds they persisted in blowing, they might try to capture that image that had appeared to them in the Waters. And they did not know the identity of its power.
• Now all these things came to pass by the will of the Father of the Entirety. Afterwards, the Spirit saw the soul-endowed Man upon the ground. And the Spirit came forth from the Adamantine Land; it descended and came to dwell within him, and that Man became a living soul. It called his name Adam, since he was found moving upon the ground. A Voice came forth from Incorruptibility for the assistance of Adam; and the Rulers gathered together all the animals of the earth and all the birds of heaven and brought them in to Adam to see what Adam would call them, so that he might give a name to each of the birds and all the beasts.
• They took Adam [and] put him the garden so that he might cultivate it and keep watch over it. And the Rulers issued a command to him, saying, “From [every] tree in the garden shall you (sing.) eat; yet [from] the tree of recognizing good and evil do not eat, nor [touch] it; for the day you eat (pl.) from it, with death you (pl.) are going to die”.
  They [...] this. They do not understand what [they have said] to him; rather, by the Father’s will, they said this in such a way that he might in fact eat, and that Adam might (not) regard them as would a man of an exclusively material nature.
• The Rulers took counsel with one another and said, “Come, let us cause a deep sleep to fall upon Adam”. And he slept. Now the deep sleep that they “caused to fall upon him, and he slept” is Ignorance. They opened his side like a living Woman. And they built up his side with some flesh in place of her, and Adam came to be endowed only with soul.
  And the spirit-endowed Woman came to him and spoke with him, saying, “Arise, Adam”. And when he saw her, he said, “It is you who have given me life; you will be called “Mother of the Living”. For it is she who is my mother. It is she who is the Physician, and the Woman, and She Who Has Given Birth”.
  Then the authorities came up to their Adam. And when they saw his female counterpart speaking with him, they became agitated with great agitation; and they became enamored of her. They said to one another, “Come, let us sow our seed in her”, and they pursued her. And she laughed at them for their witlessness and their blindness; and in their clutches she became a tree, and she left before them her shadowy reflection resembling herself; and they defiled it foully. And they defiled the form that she had stamped in her likeness, so that by the form they had modeled, together with their own image, they made themselves liable to condemnation.
• Then the Female Spiritual Principle came [in] the Snake, the Instructor; and it taught [them], saying, “What did he [say to] you (pl.)? Was it, ‘From every tree in the Garden shall you (sing.) eat; yet—from [the tree] of recognizing good and evil do not eat’?”
  The carnal Woman said, “Not only did he say ‘Do not eat’, but even ‘Do not touch it; for the day you (pl.) eat from it, with death you (pl.) are going to die.’”
  And the Snake, the Instructor, said, “With death you (pl.) shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said this to you (pl.). Rather your (pl.) eyes shall open and you (pl.) shall come to be like gods, recognizing evil and good”. And the Female Instructing Principle was taken away from the Snake, and she left it behind, merely a thing of the earth.
  And the carnal Woman took from the tree and ate; and she gave to her husband as well as herself; and these beings that possessed only a soul, ate. And their imperfection became apparent in their lack of Acquaintance; and they recognized that they were naked of the Spiritual Element, and took fig leaves and bound them upon their loins.
• Then the chief Ruler came; and he said, “Adam! Where are you?”—for he did not understand what had happened. And Adam said, “I heard your voice and was afraid because I was naked; and I hid”.
  The Ruler said, “Why did you (sing.) hide, unless it is because you (sing.) have eaten from the tree from which alone I commanded you (sing.) not to eat? And you (sing.) have eaten!”
  Adam said, “The Woman that you gave me, [she gave] to me and I ate”. And the arrogant Ruler cursed the Woman.
  The Woman said, “It was the Snake that led me astray and I ate”. They turned to the Snake and cursed its shadowy reflection, [...] powerless, not comprehending [that] it was a form they themselves had modeled. From that day, the Snake came to be under the curse of the Authorities; until the all-powerful man was to come, that curse fell upon the Snake.
  They turned to their Adam and took him and expelled him from the garden along with his wife; for they have no blessing, since they too are beneath the curse. Moreover, they threw Mankind into great distraction and into a life of toil, so that their Mankind might be occupied by worldly affairs, and might not have the opportunity of being devoted to the Holy Spirit.
• Now afterwards, she bore Cain, their son; and Cain cultivated the land. Thereupon he knew his wife; again becoming pregnant, she bore Abel; and Abel was a herdsman of sheep. Now Cain brought in from the crops of his field, but Abel brought in an offering from among his lambs. God looked upon the votive offerings of Abel; but he did not accept the votive offerings of Cain. And carnal Cain pursued Abel, his brother.
  And God said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?”
  He answered saying, “Am I, then, my brother’s keeper?”
  God said to Cain, “Listen! The voice of your brother’s blood is crying up to me! You have sinned with your mouth. It will return to you: anyone who kills Cain will let loose seven vengeances, and you will exist groaning and trembling upon the earth”.
• And Adam [knew] his female counterpart Eve, and she became pregnant, and bore [Seth] to Adam. And she said, “I have borne [another] man through God, in place of [Abel]”. Again, Eve became pregnant, and she bore Norea. And she said, “He has begotten on [me a] virgin as an assistance [for] many generations of mankind”. She is the virgin whom the Forces did not defile.
  Then mankind began to multiply and improve.
• The Rulers took counsel with one another and said, “Come, let us cause a deluge with our hands and obliterate all flesh, from man to beast”. But when the Ruler of the Forces came to know of their decision, he said to Noah, “Make yourself an ark from some wood that does not rot and hide in it—you and your children and the beasts and the birds of heaven from small to large—and set it upon Mount Sir”.
• Then Orea came to him, wanting to board the ark. And when he would not let her, she blew upon the ark and caused it to be consumed by fire. Again, he made the ark, for a second time.
• The Rulers went to meet her, intending to lead her astray. Their supreme chief said to her, “Your mother Eve came to us”.
  But Norea turned to them and said to them, “It is you who are the Rulers of the Darkness; you are accursed. And you did not know my mother; instead, it was your female counterpart that you knew. For I am not your descendant; rather it is from the World Above that I am come”.
  The arrogant Ruler turned, with all his might, [and] his countenance came to be like [a] black [...]; he said to her presumptuously, “You must render service to us, as did also your mother Eve; for … [...]”.
• But Norea turned, with the might of [...]; and in a loud voice, she cried out up to the Holy One, the God of the Entirety, “Rescue me from the Rulers of Unrighteousness and save me from their clutches—forthwith!”
• The (Great) Angel came down from the heavens and said to her, “Why are you crying up to God? Why do you act so boldly towards the Holy Spirit?
• Norea said, “Who are you?” The Rulers of Unrighteousness had withdrawn from her. He said, “It is I who am Eleleth, Sagacity, the great angel who stands in the presence of the Holy Spirit. I have been sent to speak with you and save you from the grasp of the lawless. And I shall teach you about your root”.