Eve Rewritten

The character of Eve in writings Apocryphon of John (NHC I, 1 II, 1 IV, 1, BG

8502), the Nature of the Rulers (NHC II, 4) on the Origin of the World (NHC II, 5;
NHC XIII, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926[1]) and in the Testimony of Truth (NHC IX, 3)

Heikki Hesso
εaster’s Thesis in the
Religious Roots of
Europe
Faculty of Theology
University of Helsinki
October 2014
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Faculty Department or institute
Theology
Writer
Hesso, Heikki Tauno Kalervo
Religious Roots of Europe
Type of thesis Month and year Number of pages
εaster’s Thesis 10/2014 92 + Appendix
Abstract
This study focuses on the character of Eve in four Early Christian texts from the
Nag Hammadi Codices, the Apocryphon of John, the Nature of the Rulers, On the
Origin of the World and the Testimony of Truth. The study has two aims. First to
study what traditions about Eve these texts use and how they use the traditons?
Second, what purposes the use of these traditions serve?

The study proceeds in a thematic way focusing on Eve’s creation, Eve’s rape,
Eve’s children and the relationship between Eve and the serpent. Not all themes are
present in every text. All texts are studied separately focusing on traditions behind
the texts and reason for presenting Eve in a certain way. After this the images of
Eve in every text are compared with each other.

The creation of Eve separates the two characters of Eve, Heavenly and Earthly one.
This dichotomy passes through the texts classified as Genesis interpretations and is
used as a hermeneutical tool for studying Eve. Heavenly Eve escapes from the rape
attempt of the evil creator god, who is identified as the god of the Old Testament.
Her escape produces Earthly Eve, material woman. The rape attempt of the creator
god underlines the hostility and licentiousness of the Old Testament god. Eve’s
children derive from the rape of Earthly Eve and from Adam’s knowing his divine
counterpart, whose name differs from the texts but it can be linked to the character
of ώeavenly Eve. Eve’s children stand for the division between different human
classes. Eve's rape underlines the hostility of the Old Testament god and explains
the origin of the human need for the procreation. The serpent is either a teacher of
sexual lust or when interpreted positively, is connected to Heavenly Eve or Christ
and the correct instruction and enlightenment of the humans.

The texts use Early Jewish, Christian and rabbinical material dealing with the
events of Genesis. They rework these traditions in order to present the character of
the creator god negatively and to promote ascetic lifestyle. Through Earthly Eve
the negativity of the creator god and origin of the passions in human life are
demonstrated. Heavenly Eve stands for virginity, spirituality and renunciation of
the bodily needs thus serving as a support for the ascetic lifestyle and the social
conventions of the readers of texts.

Keywords
Eve, Nag Hammadi Codices, Asceticism, The Serpent, Genesis interpretations
Other information

Place of Storage University of Helsinki Library

 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Paradise, Eve and the Fall – Some remarks about Eve in the Jewish and
Early Christian Literature ...................................................................................... 2
1.3. Research History and Presentation of the Sources ......................................... 6
2. Methodological Considerations ............................................................................. 9
2.1. Thematic Approach ...................................................................................... 12
3. Analysis of the Nag Hammadi and BG 8502 texts.............................................. 14
3.1. Eve’s Creation .............................................................................................. 14
3.1.1. The Apocryphon of John ....................................................................... 14
3.1.2. The Nature of the Rulers ....................................................................... 19
3.1.3. On the Origin of the World ................................................................... 25
3.1.4. The Testimony of Truth......................................................................... 28
3.1.η. Conclusions to Eve’s Creation .............................................................. 29
3.2. The Rape of Eve ........................................................................................... 31
3.2.1. The Apocryphon of John ....................................................................... 31
3.2.2. The Nature of the Rulers ....................................................................... 35
3.2.3. On the Origin of the World ................................................................... 37
3.2.4. The Testimony of Truth......................................................................... 39
3.2.5. Conclusion to the Rape of Eve .............................................................. 40
3.3. Eve and the serpent ....................................................................................... 41
3.3.1. The Apocryphon of John ....................................................................... 41
3.3.2. The Nature of the Rulers ....................................................................... 47
3.3.3. On the Origin of the World ................................................................... 50
3.3.4. The Testimony of Truth......................................................................... 51
3.3.5. Conclusions to Eve and the serpent ....................................................... 53
3.ζ. Eve’s Children .............................................................................................. 55
3.4.1. The Apocryphon of John ....................................................................... 56
Excursion: Seth, procreation and sexuality in NHC III .............................. 65
3.4.2. The Nature of the Rulers ....................................................................... 70
3.4.3. On the Origin of the World ................................................................... 77
3.4.4. The Testimony of Truth......................................................................... 78
3.ζ.η. Conclusions to the Eve’s Children ........................................................ 80
4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 82
5. Relevance of Research......................................................................................... 87
6. Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 88
Dictionaries and Aids .......................................................................................... 88
Primary Sources ................................................................................................... 88
Secondary Literature............................................................................................ 89
Appendix: Themes Concerning Eve Characters in Selected Texts ........................... 3
Adam's scorn was upon Eve,
He said woman you made me sin
Eve said the true God came down from above,
Took a snake just to let the light in
(King Dude: Lucifer’s the Light of the World)

1. Introduction
The stories about the creation of the world, the creation of the first humans and
their expulsion from Paradise presented in the first chapters of Genesis have greatly
influenced Western culture, especially through the Abrahamic religions. The
connection between God and humans was broken and humankind was driven out of
Paradise because of the incidents in the Garden of Eden. The story of the eating
from the Tree of Knowledge and especially Eve’s role in the event was a theme the
of which interpretations gave rise to negative attitude towards women and
womanhood in the literature produced during the Second Temple period in Judaism
and Early Christianity.1 When the first chapters of Genesis were interpreted these
interpretations resulted literature where Eve’s role in the course of narrative was
stressed. In Early Christian theology paradisiacal events and their consequences
were of great importance, but of course there were many other important themes.2
There were, however, differences among the interpretations as to what actually
happened to the first humans in Paradise before and after the eating scene. Some
Early Christian texts from the Nag Hammadi Codices – which can be dated to the
4th century – present Genesis interpretations where the narrative is interpreted in a
very peculiar way: the god of Paradise is an evil creator god, and the humans are
under his authority (at least to some extent) before they manage to eat from the tree
of knowledge (presented in Gen. 2:17).3 The “Fall” or disobeying the
commandment of the evil god not to eat from the tree of knowledge was actually a
good thing and brought about the knowledge of the True God and of the situation
of the humans in the cosmos. It is not only the actual scene of eating from the tree
of knowledge, but sometimes also the creation, Eve’s children and the events

1
Yee 2003, 1–2, 4; Meyers 2013, 61–65. Cf. Life of Adam and Eve or in Charlesworth 2010 (ed),
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha vol. 2.
2
Christ’s role, questions dealing with resurrection, Christianity’s relationship to Judaism to name a
few. One of the most influential theological theme which dealt with the events in Eden was
Augustine’s doctrine of τriginal Sin.
3
In this study I refer to creator god presented in Nag Hammadi and Berlinus Gnosticus texts with
terms god, with small initial, or the god of the Old Testament to stress the difference between
creator god and the True God in these texts.

1
between Eve and the god of the Old Testament which were told in a very different
way or, at least, they were expanded from the chapters of Genesis.
This study concentrates on the reception and the use of the character of Eve
in four Early Christian documents: the Apocryphon of John, the Nature of the
Rulers, on The Origin of the World and the Testimony of Truth.4 All these texts
belong to a corpus called the Nag Hammadi Codices.5 The first three texts discuss
cosmological, anthropological and soteriological themes as obvious interpretations
of the opening chapters of Genesis, viz. chapters dealing with creation, i.e. the first
three chapters. The texts present same kind of material, but they have differences
when it comes to the character of Eve and several other factors. The last text is not
a Genesis interpretation like the others, but it includes themes dealing with Eve.
Because of this, I believe that some remarks about the theology and anthropology
of the text can be constructed. Eve and her role in Paradise are, of course, wide
topics and the character of Eve is also presented in many other texts of the Nag
Hammadi. I chose these texts, because the first three are somewhat similar, but also
include interesting variations. The fourth text, instead, has been chosen to be a case
study about Eve; if the character of Eve is portrayed in a different way in this text,
it will show that the Nag Hammadi Codices is not a homogenous collection of
texts.
I will study how the authors of these texts use the character of Eve, what
traditions do they use and how do they alter these traditions. My research questions
are, how is the character of Eve portrayed and why? What traditions the authors of
the texts use and how they alter these traditions? What purposes do these
alterations and the character of Eve in general serve?

1.2. Paradise, Eve and the Fall – Some remarks about Eve in
the Jewish and Early Christian Literature
Before studying the traditions about Eve and the use of these traditions in my
sources, I will concentrate briefly on the literature about Eve in both Jewish and
Christian tradition. I will deal with some texts which re-tell the events of Genesis.
Material is mostly Jewish, but I will also present some Christian material that

4
Shortened as: Ap. John, Nat. Rul. Orig. World and Test. Truth.
5
The name of the corpus is of course given by the scholars, referring to the city near the finding.
The Ap. John has been preserved in four different manuscripts, three from the Nag Hammadi
Codices and one from the so called Berlin Gnostic Codex. I include this version also to this study.

2
concerns Eve. Thorough examination of the material in Early Jewish and Christian
literature cannot be made in the course of this study, but I will present some chosen
literature in order to draw some kind of an overview of the attitudes towards Eve.
With this overview I hope I can reveal something about the cultural background6 of
the attitude towards the story of Genesis and especially towards Eve. If one wants
to understand how the character of Eve has developed, one needs first to know
where everything started. Because of this I briefly recall the Genesis narrative in
chapters 1–4.
In the Genesis account the narrative is straightforward: After the creation of
the world, God creates humanity. The so-called second creation narrative tells the
creation of Eve from Adam’s rib. The serpent is introduced in chapter three in
which it converses with Eve, persuading her to eat from the tree of knowledge of
good and evil. This leads humans to recognize their nakedness and they hide from
God. After the disobedience of Adam and Eve is revealed to God they are expelled
from Paradise. After the expulsion Eve begets children with Adam, Cain and Abel.
Abel is killed by Cain and after this Seth, the third child of Adam and Eve, is born.
It is important to remember that the text does not refer to the serpent as the Devil
like later tradition does. Also the term Fall does not occur in the text. The origin of
this mythical, aetiological text goes far to the history of mankind and it cannot be
properly dated. The composition and the redaction has been studied widely, from
the 19th century onwards.7 The central themes of the opening chapters are, thus the
creation of world, creation of humans (both first and second creation), the role of
the serpent, the tree of knowledge and expulsion. From this literal foundation arose
the great history of interpretation.
One of the best known texts dealing with the events of Paradise is probably
Life of Adam and Eve or Apocalypse of Moses from the 1st century C.E.8 The text
deals with Adam, his son Seth and his wife Eve. The text has some fascinating
details about Paradise9, but the text’s attitude towards Eve is very negative. Eve
laments the actions which led to the expulsion from Paradise, telling that she
actually let the devil in through the gates of Paradise in the form of a serpent. She
6
With cultural background I mean, for example, shared narratives like the creation myth, normative
values, etc.
7
Perhaps most known scholar of the composition of the book of Genesis was Julius Wellhausen
1844-1918.
8
Bronner 1994, 23. For the translation and short introduction see Johnson 2010.
9
For example the notion that the fruit humans ate was a fig, which is not mentioned in the Genesis.

3
goes through extreme repentance.10 Here the idea about the blame for the expulsion
and what happened afterwards is assigned entirely to Eve. Interpretative process
has also reached the figure of the serpent. It is now the Devil, God’s opponent.11
The author of the Book of Jubilees (from 2nd century B.C.) leaves some of the
parts from the original Genesis narrative untold. The serpent is not the Devil, even
though ideas about demons occur later in the text. The section, which retells Eve’s
dealing with the serpent lacks ύod’s questioning of Adam, concentrating on the
actions of Eve and the serpent. The cursing of Eve is also stressed, while the
cursing of Adam and possibly of the serpent is minimized.12
The events in the Garden of Eden play a crucial role in the formation of the
Christian theology. Augustine with his doctrine of original sin, and even earlier
Christian writers dealt with the theme of the transgression of the first humans. The
best known of the writers was probably Paul. In Rom. 5:12, 14 Paul states that sin
came to the world through one man, relating the transgression to Gen. 3 and to
Adam.13 1. Tim. 2 however stresses Eve’s part in the story, since it states that Eve
let herself be deceived.14 1. Tim. is a good example of a reception of the Genesis
narrative. The author uses Genesis tradition and interprets it so that it fits his
agenda, which in this case is to prevent women from teaching in the congregations.
Originally, the Genesis myth did not dealt with these kinds of questions, but
(religious) interpretations are always made in a certain time and place and for
certain purposes.
Known Christian authors who wrote about Eve and womanhood in general
include Tertullian and Augustine, amongst others. Tertullian’s view on women as a
“gateway of the devil”15 leaves no doubt about his attitude towards femininity and
links femininity to the actions of Eve and to the events in Paradise. Augustine

10
Apoc. Mos. 10, 19, Vita 9–10.
11
It is uncertain whether Life of Adam and Eve was actually Jewish or Christian text, but it shows
that in the 1st century these tradition were already written down. Also during that time the separation
between Jewish religion and Christianity was only at stake, so it is somewhat anachronistic to speak
of Christianity as a separate religion at the first century C.E.
12
Heger 2014, 61–θ2. The first part of ώeger’s monograph deals well with different stressing of the
ύenesis interpretations and women’s character in these interpretations.
13
Heger 2014, 32 italics mine.
14
1. Tim. 2:13–14
15
De cultu feminarum 1:1.

4
presents the view that in every woman inhabits Eve which men must be aware of. 16
The link with Eve and the Fall is clear.
In Rabbinic interpretations womanhood is twofold. On one hand women are
respected and their role as the “missing part” of man is underlined.17 This shows
the appreciation of women and femininity and serves as a reason for their creation.
Without woman the creation of human would have been imperfect. Yet some
interpretations connect the act of Eve especially with sexual lust and
licentiousness.18 This again stresses the negativity of womanhood, since this
licentiousness was usually connected to Eve’s action in Paradise or it at least
derived from it. This was later also linked to the mythological figure of Lilith,
Adam’s first wife; in medieval Jewish sources who was a strong, independent and
sexually dominating demoness.
With this very brief overview I wanted to present two things. First, Genesis
and its first chapters had an important cultural effect on the attitude towards the
perception of womanhood. The interpretations of Genesis had tendencies where the
role of the woman in the eating scene was stressed because in the text it is she who
talks with the serpent. Some interpretations stressed women’s subordinate status
and that the blame belonged primarily to women, not men, even though Adam was
also condemned and cursed The actions of Eve still produced interpretations which
stressed that the blame for what had happened in Paradise was connected to Eve
and through her with every woman in Jewish and Christian cultures Secondly the
tradition about the serpent as the Devil started to attach itself to the interpretations.
In some Jewish and Christian traditions the serpent and the Devil were actually
identified or at least they had a very close connection.19 The myth was firstly
aetiological, but in later interpretations Eve’s blame was stressed and the serpent
was seen as the Devil or at as least his instrument. In Christianity Eve’s role in the
origin of the sin was stressed. The worldview of Early Jewish and Christian culture
was not misogynist, as can be seen from the rabbinical texts and perhaps also from
the role of Virgin Mary in the Christian tradition (which of course is then set
against Eve by seeing Mary as the New Eve, giving the virginal birth to the Christ).

16
In εeyers 2ί13, θ2, Augustine’s letter 2ζη.1ί.
17
Meyers 2013, 204,Heger 2014, 30,44.
18
Bronner 1994, 26, notes 12–13 for different rabbinic text supporting the connection of the “όall”
and sexuality.
19
Testament of Abraham,

5
However, sexuality, sin and the “όall” however were focal themes in the perception
of woman and womanhood in many Early Jewish and Christian texts.

1.3. Research History and Presentation of the Sources

Studies concerning the questions related to gender, womanhood and how these
themes are presented in Early Jewish and Christian texts rose alongside with the
feminist studies in the 1λκί’s. One central work was done by Elizabeth Schüssler
όiorenza in 1λκ3 when her study “In the εemory of ώer” was published. In her
book she offers her reconstruction of the women’s place in Early Christianity. Even
though it does not deal much with the mythological character of Eve, it can be
considered as a launch for the study of womanhood and its affect to the Christianity
in the field of Early Christian studies.
The study about character of Eve is made by many scholars, mostly women.
Carol Meyers has studied the character of Eve and its impact on the social reality of
the Israelite women, their status in the community and their role in everyday life in
ancient Israel. εeyer’s study does greatly concerned with the character of biblical
Eve, but the presentation of what happened in Paradise clearly sets a stage to the
attitude towards femininity both in Jewish and Christian understanding.
Another field of study is womanhood in rabbinical texts. Studies have been
studied videly, for example by Leila Bronner, Judith Baskin and Gale Yee to name
a few. Their studies show that questions concerning womanhood in general,
questions concerning women’s social status like learning and taking part to the
religious activities.20 Some rabbinical material also dealt with the problems of evil,
which was then linked to the actions of Eve.
The character of Eve and especially femininine themes in the Nag Hammadi
Codices has been a much studied topic. The Nag Hammadi texts present many
female divine characters, but also ascetic and sometimes misogynists attitudes
towards femininity. One central work is Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism
edited by Karen L. King, where many scholars deal with different questions rising
from the Nag Hammadi and related writings. Since some of texts from Nag
Hammadi deal with the Genesis it is understandable that Eve is also mentioned in
these studies, even to her role and its functions has not been focused much. Many

20
Baskin 2002, 49, 79–83.

6
studies however seem to focus on the character of Sophia21 and in the cosmology
of the heavenly world and its platonic traditions.22 The influence of Jewish
traditions in the Nag Hammadi texts has been studied widely, for example by late
Quilled Quispel and Birger A. Pearson. One central focus of the study has been the
connection between different creation myths presented in the Nag Hammadi and
related documents and their possible origin.23
The texts I study are the Apocryphon of John (Ap. John) the Nature of the
Rulers24 (Nat. Rul), On the Origin of the World (Orig. World) and the Testimony of
Truth (Test. Truth). All of these texts are found in the collection called the Nag
Hammadi Library or the Nag Hammadi Codices. These texts were found from
Upper Egypt in 1945 but one could say that the proper study of these texts began in
the 19ιί’s when editions of the texts, or at least parts of them became available to
scholars. The Nag Hammadi texts were probably best known for their presentation
of “τther side of Early Christianity”, presenting so called “ύnostic” Christianity
and theology which were before the finding familiar only from the polemical
writings of the Early Christian “orthodox” writers. My source texts are written in
Coptic. They were presumably copied from the Greek or Coptic originals.
Ap. John, Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. are clearly Genesis interpretations
which deal with the themes presented in the opening chapters of Genesis (creation,
origin of the humans, cosmological questions). Common to these texts is that there
are two gods. One, who is above everything, true god or the Father of the All,
whom all originated in the beginning. This god is unknown and humans need a
divine mediator to know him. This mediator is sometimes Christ, sometimes a
female divinity called as epinoia, Spiritual woman or Zoe-Eve, depending on the
text. The other god is inferior creator god, who is connecter to the God of the Old
Testament and can be associated to the demiurge presented in Plato’s Timaios. But

21
δike the ground breaking article of ύeroge εacRae, see εacRae “The Jewish background of the
ύnostic Sophia εyth”, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 12, Fasc. 2. (Apr., 1970), pp. 86-101.
22
Platonic traditions are not connected to the character of Eve, and because of this the clear
references to the Platonic tradition are not dealt much in this study.
23
Rasimus 2009, 37–43 speaks about connections between some texts from the Nag Hammadi and
also refers to the modern scholarly discussion. Because I will study texts separately at root and I
won’t focus much to the question connecting texts to certain branches of “ύnosticism” I choose to
present discussion concerning Gnosticism and Nag Hammadi texts very shortly. Brief account for
the literaly relationship for Nag Hammadi Genesis interpretations can be found from Dentzey 2013,
131–165.
24
Sometimes referred as the Hypostasis of the Archons leaving more open the meaning of the term
hypostasis. I chose to use term Nature of the Rulers.

7
where in Timaios the demiurge is a positive being, in my source texts he is a
malevolent, violent and imperfect creature.25 Because of this his creation, the
physical world is also a negative place. The human body is created by the evil
creator god, when again the spiritual element, which makes humans alive originates
from the heavenly world. The shared theme in Genesis interpretations is that the
some of the divine material has been ended to the physical world by the mistake of
Sophia, the lowest being of the divine world. Because of Sophia’s action the
creator god was born in the first place. The divine material has transferred to inside
the humans and the restoring this material to the heavenly world is the plot of these
texts. Because of this the divine intermediators come and help humans in the
physical world.
The Test. Truth. is a sermon or a religious tractate which deals with many
themes. It is not a Genesis interpretation as the three other texts, but it deals with
the correct interpretation of the Old Testament passages, criticizes different
Christian teachers and their followers and certain Christian doctrines like
resurrection and baptism, or at least certain kind of interpretation of these
doctrines. Test. Truth does not focus on cosmological questions like the Genesis
interpretations, but it deals with anthropological and theological themes. It also
refers to the Paradise and the encounter between Eve and the serpent.
The manuscripts from the Nag Hammadi has been dated to the 4th century,
even though it is that the origin of these texts goes much earlier in the history.

25
Dentzey 2013, 157.

8
2. Methodological Considerations

When studying the process of creating the texts under consideration, some
methodological observations must be made. First, I am dealing with two kinds of
texts: Genesis interpretations (Ap. John, Nat. Rulers, and Orig. World.) and a
sermon or a religious tractate (Test. Truth). It is important to remember that even
though there are clear parallels between the texts I classify as Genesis
interpretations, the texts differ from each other. The Ap. John can be considered a
revelation discourse26, as can also the second half of the Nat. Rul., but Orig. World
is without this feature. In fact they both begin with a didactic or sermon-like
opening. This distinction may be of little relevance, but before studying these texts
it is important to be aware of the scholar’s own understanding of the genres of the
texts. I presume that philosophical tractate or sermon can present different kind of
argumentation from Genesis interpretations. They also deal with different themes,
which is important to remember so that what is a central theme in one text may
well be of little or no relevance to the author of another text. There are also
differences in Genesis interpretations which raise the question about possible
redaction of the texts. Three Genesis interpretations present similar material but
also differences, sometimes in very central places. This notion was main concern
that led to the phrasing of my research questions.
Second, and this may be the most important methodological consideration in
the course of this study, we must pay attention to the authors’ role in the process of
creating these texts. The author is a creative person – there is always a reason for
his literal activity. When studying the traditions the author used in a certain text,
we have to focus carefully on three questions: 1) what traditions does the author
use? 2) Does he alter them, and if he does, how (what techniques does he use and
does the use of a certain technique reveal something about author’s intention)? 3)
What purposes do these alterations serve? In the case of this study, what are the
reasons of the authors to portrait Eve in a certain way? From the point of view of
my research questions, it is important to think which Eve traditions do the authors
use, how do they present the character of Eve and why? This way of presenting a
certain type of Eve probably also has an effect on the theology of the text.

26
Despite the fact that actually text is mostly monologue of Christ.

9
 The author of a certain text not only passes on the previous tradition, but also
processes it.27 In the Nag Hammadi texts we can find different traditions. The
authors of the texts use Genesis, Middle platonic philosophy and rabbinical
material as their sources, to name a few.28 What is the purpose of the use of these
traditions? What happens to the character of Eve, when it comes to the Nag
Hammadi texts? What is the function of presenting Eve in a certain way? While
studying the final product that is the texts from the Nag Hammadi Codices we also
have to remember the author or the copyist behind the text. An author has his own
social context, his own theology and his own reasons for creating the text. On the
other hand, the author creates something new; his literary product is not just a sum
of his sources and religious and social background but something more.29
No text develops in a vacuum, so the social and cultural context of the Nag
Hammadi writings must be taken into consideration. This is because the author
uses traditions that are familiar to him, and if he invents new material his social
context has an effect on that. Also, different kinds of problems the author faces, the
author’s theology and his aims (Syreeni calls this a literary plan30) are also
(sometimes) influenced by his social milieu. Of course, not every literary action the
author takes is connected with certain events or problems in his real life
experience. With social context I mean the place where the Nag Hammadi texts
were probably copied and with cultural context the general intellectual atmosphere
of the 4th and 5th centuries, where the codices can be dated.31 This means the
possible ascetic monastic milieu and also a Christian worldview with platonic
features. Even though in the scholarly world there is a discussion going on about
the origin of these writings and the final word is yet to be said, some notions about
the Nag Hammadi writings must be dealt with.

27
Syreeni 1987, 4. Syreeni’s dissertation deals with ύospel traditions, but includes many important
hermeneutical considerations that are valid when studying any kind of religious text.
28
Rabbinical texts (Talmud(s), Mishna and various commentaries) were written down later thatn the
Nag Hammadi texts, but they do preserve early material which creates an interesting link to the Nag
Hammadi texts.
29
Williamson 2013, 26.
30
Syreeni 1987, 18.
31
Material from the cartonnage of the some codices includes dates from the 4 th century. This offer
terminus post quem at least for some codices. See: Nag Hammadi Codices, Greek and Coptic Papyri
from the Cartonnage of the Covers p. 106.

10
 Whether some of the writings in Nag Hammadi Codices had a pre-Christian
origin is still an open question in the scholarship.32 It is clear that for example
different kind of Genesis interpretations and expansions originated in Jewish
circles during the second Temple period. However, from the point of view of this
study, it is important to notice that the Nag Hammadi texts were produced in a
Christian milieu.33 This can be seen for example from the many allusions to the
texts of the New Testament in Nag Hammadi texts, the use of material relating to
the apostles and in some cases also from the decorations of the Codices presenting
Christian symbols. 34 It is arguable that Nag Hammadi writings are Christian texts
or texts which have been used in a Christian context.35
The clearer definition of the social context of these writings is problematic.
The fact that we do not know anything for sure about the history of these texts or
their discovery makes all endeavours for tracing the actual social background very
dubious. Earlier in the research the Nag Hammadi Codices were referred to as a
collection of “Gnostic” texts that was either composed to preserve dubious texts
from the hands of “orthodox” bishops or some considered it to be a heretical library
that was used as an example of what kind of texts should be avoided.36 Even if the
actual location, whether it was a monastery, urban school setting etc. remains
unclear, the texts themselves present a negative attitude towards the creator god,
who is linked with the God of the Old Testament. Old Testament is not denied, but
its text is rectified.37 It could be said that Old Testament was an important book for
these Christians, because it was a book that needed interpretation and correction,
not total rejection. It was a book that was worthy of intellectual rereading.38 In the
texts asceticism and encratic worldview are emphasized as the following chapters

32
Quispel 2008, 156, 163 –1θζ. Quispel’s stands that Ap. John was not originally a Christian text.
33
I use the term “Christian” loose way. I suppose that the character of Christ, the traditions about
apostles and the reception of the material, both Old and the New Testament played important role in
the world–view of the scribes and readers of the σag ώammadi Codices. During the time period I’m
dealing with Christianity was really diverse and different opinions for example the character of
Jesus existed.
34
Evans, 1993 vviii, note 4, 172, 205.
35
There are few texts without Christian features, e.g. Thunder (VI,2), Excerpt from Plato’s Republic
(VI,5), This however does not mean that these texts would not have been read in a Christian circles.
36
For example introduction in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures by Meyer and Pagels present the idea
that collection was made by the monks who wanted to preserve this material after Athanasius, the
bishop of Alexandria published his Easter letter with the canon list for the Bible in 367 see Meyer
and Pagels 2007, 6.
37
Luttikhuizen 2006, 27–28.
38
Luttikhuizen 2006, 10, 20 – 25.

11
will show. Test. Truth deals with other Christian groups and their ignorance of the
theological affairs, so the link to the social schisms is very strong with this text.
At this point, only few notions can be made: 1) The Nag Hammadi texts are
Christian texts. However, it is impossible to know if some of the traditions
presented in the Nag Hammadi Codices originated outside Christianity. From the
point of view of this study, this possibility concerns only the texts that I classify as
Genesis interpretations. The unawareness about the possible origin of the traditions
is not a problem, since I am not trying to discover the origin of the traditions but
studying the use of the traditions concerning Eve and how and why Eve is
presented in a certain way in these four Nag Hammadi texts. Basically, I am first
studying the possible traditions about Eve which lay behind the Nag Hammadi
texts and after this, the reason for using or altering the Eve tradition in these texts.
2) Defining the social context of these texts is difficult. This causes problems when
trying to locate the place of origin or use of the Nag Hammadi Codices and its
effect on the writings. Some texts emphasize an ascetic lifestyle and focus on
demons and their actions in the world. This could easily fit in the monastic
context.39 Since Egypt was a central place of education and culture in the antiquity,
the monastic setting is not the only option. Even if the texts of Nag Hammadi
would have been part of a monastic readings, they may have also originated also
outside this context. At least we can say that the texts present an ascetic worldview,
they deal with the themes of creation and its consequences to the humans and with
the proper way of interpretation of the Old Testament. Although the actual setting
of the texts remains dubious, we can say that they present the above mentioned
attitudes and we can use this as a tool when reflecting possible reasons for
interpretation of Eve and reasons for these interpretations.

2.1. Thematic Approach

I study Eve’s character through four themes. I concentrate on Eve’s creation and
how she is related to divine female figures, on her rape, her relationship with the
serpent and finally her children. I argue that these themes play important roles in
the theology of the Genesis interpretations and through this kind of thematic study
it is possible to shed light on the character of Eve and her role in the texts. In the

39
King 2006, 7–21 discusses different possibilities concerning the origin of the Ap. John and brings
up the possible monastic setting concerning the Nag Hammadi Codices.

12
case of Test. Truth., not all themes can be found, but especially the last two themes
can be studied. It is also possible to hypothesise what the author might have
thought about themes that are not dealt with directly in this text. Most importantly
these themes are central to the character of Eve and through these themes I can
answer my research questions. After the thematic study is made it is possible to
portray different pictures of Eve in these particular texts and compare them.
Comparing is interesting, since if diversity between the images of Eve occurs, it
can shed light to the theologies between the different texts and promote a reason
for more detailed study of Early Christian texts which deal with the topics of
ύenesis interpretations and attitudes towards Eve’s character and her role as the
ancestress of mankind. Since this study focuses especially on the Nag Hammadi
texts (and to Berlin Codex), if there are differences between the attitudes towards
Eve, a detailed study about Eve in the whole Nag Hammadi corpus should be
made. It must be remembered that topics dealing with sexuality, gender and the
different aspects towards womanhood and femininity presented above in chapter
1.2. are naturally present in the character of Eve. This observation is important
because it has already been stated that gender and questions linked to it are not
trivial aspects, but they play an important role in the thought of Late Antiquity,
from where my sources derive.40
Each text is studied separately in order to give each text its own voice. In the
case of Ap. John, where four different manuscripts have been preserved, each
manuscript is studied separately, so that the possible differences between the
versions can be noticed.

40
Kraemer 2008, 465–467.

13
3. Analysis of the Nag Hammadi and BG 8502 texts
3.1. Eve’s Creation
This subchapter presents the creation of Eve. I will focus here on the creation
narrative, why Eve is created and how her creation is portrayed. What is her role to
the divine world and in the case of Genesis interpretations, especially to the divine
female figures? I notify the reader that in this chapter I deal also with the divine
feminine beings, who are not created in same sense as Eve, the earthly wife of
Adam. Divine female beings, who get the attributes of Eve are in the narratives
eternal beings belonging to the heavenly world or at least their origin is not
discussed, except in the Ap. John. the origin of epinoia is mentioned briefly. The
texts however deal with the theme of creation presented in Genesis and build on the
interpretation of that event, so I choose to use the term creation.41 I choose to call
the female divine beings as Heavenly Eve and the woman linked to the creator god
as Earthly Eve. These expression do not rise from the texts, but they express the
two fold character of Eve in the texts.

3.1.1. The Apocryphon of John

Heavenly epinoia, is portrayed dwelling inside Adam, enlightening his mind.
Because of this Adam did not obey the serpent’s instruction.42 Chief Ruler wanted
to bring the power out of Adam and caused him to fall into the deep sleep, meaning
the darkening of his perception. Below I present the whole creation narrative, even
though it is quite long.
NHC III 29, 12–30, 21 BG 59, 6–61, 7 NHC II, 22, 28–23,33
Then the epinoia of the Then the epinoia of the Then epinoia of the
Light hid herself inside Light hid herself in him Light hid herself in him
him (Adam). And in a (Adam). And in his desire (Adam). And the Chief
desire he (Chief Ruler) he (Chief Ruler) wanted Ruler wanted to bring her
wanted to bring her out to bring her out of the rib. out of his rib. But
from his rib. epinoia is But she, epinoia of the epinoia of the Light
something that cannot be Light is something that cannot be grasped.
grasped. The darkness cannot be grasped, Although darkness

41
τther solution could be the term “origin”, but I choose to use Biblical expressions.
42
NHC III 28, 20–24; BG 58,4–9; NHC II 22,12–17.

14
pursued her light but it although the darkness
did not catch the light. pursued her, it was not
And he wanted to bring able to catch her. He
a new form, in a shape wanted to bring the
of a woman. power out of him in
order to make a form
once again in the shape
of a woman.
And he raised her up And he raised her up
before him, not as Moses before him, not as Moses
saidμ “ώe took a rib and saidμ “ώe took a rib and
created a woman and put created a woman beside
her beside him.” At that him.” At that moment he
moment he became sober (Adam) became sober
from drunkenness of from the drunkenness of
death. epinoia lifted the darkness. epinoia of the
veil on his mind. Light lifted the veil which that moment luminous
lay over his mind
At that moment he knew At that moment, when he
his fellow-essence recognized his essence
(tefsunousia) who is (ousia) he said, This is
like him. “Indeed you are indeed bone of my bones
bone from my bones and and flesh of my flesh.
you are flesh from my Because of this the man
flesh. Because of this will leave his father and
man will leave his father his father and he will join
and his mother and he to his wife and they both
will join to his wife and become one flesh. For the
they both become one εother’s consort will be
flesh, for the εother’s sent forth and she will be
pursued her, it did not
catch her. And he brought
a part of his power out of
him. And he made
another form in the
shape of a woman
according to the
likeness of epinoia
which had appeared to
him. And he brought the
part which he had taken
from the power of the
man into the female form
and not as Moses said
“his rib”. And he saw the
woman beside him and in
epinoia appeared and
she lifted the veil which
lay over his mind. And he
became sober from the
drunkenness of darkness.
And he recognized his
image (tefeine) and
said: This is indeed bone
of my bones and flesh of
my flesh. Because of this
the man will leave his
father and his mother and
he will join to his wife
and they will both
become one flesh. For his
friend (Mpef¥bR) will be
15
consort was sent forth to rectified, Therefore Adam sent to him, and he will
rectify her deficiencies. gave her the name the leave his father and his
Therefore Adam gave her Mother of all the living… mother It is our sister
the name the Mother of Sophia who came down
all the living… epinoia taught him about in innocence in order that
epinoia taught them knowledge. From the she might correct her
from the tree in the form tree, in the form of an deficiency. Because of
of an eagle. She taught eagle she taught him to this she was called Life
them to eat of knowledge eat of knowledge, so that (zwh), which is the
so that they might he might remember his Mother of the Living. By
remember their perfection perfection for both had pronoia of the authority
for both had undergone gone the fall of of heaven. And through
the fall in ignorance. ignorance. her they have tasted the
perfect knowledge. I
appeared in the form of
an eagle on the tree of
knowledge, which is
epinoia from the
pronoia of pure light so
that I might teach them
and awaken them from
the depth of sleep for they
were both in a fallen state
and they recognized their
nakedness.

First notion is that Earthly Eve is created by Yaldabaoth because he wanted to get
hold of epinoia which was inside Adam. This is indicated in every version of the
text. This creates the dichotomy between the characters of epinoia and the female
creation of Yaldabaoth. The texts also correct the Genesis 2:21, stating that the
creation from the rib did not take place. One could ask, from where Earthly Eve is
then created. The statement that Yaldabaoth brought a new form probably refers to
his activity as the creator god, he creates from the material of the physical world as

16
he did with all his creation. So the essence of Earthly Eve is from the substance of
the chaotic earth, from the kingdom of Yaldabaoth which is actually the same
substance which Adam is created. This links negative connotations to the origin of
Earthly Eve.
In NHC II Yaldabaoth succeeds in bringing some of the power out of Adam.
It would be strange if this meant that epinoia was left under the powers of
Yaldabaoth, but apparently Yaldabaoth brought something out of Adam. At this
moment it is clear that Earthly Eve is created by Yaldabaoth.. The fact that Earthly
Eve is created by the likeness of epinoia does not raise her status since she is
about to lose the divine element inside her.43 In NHC II epinoia is somehow also
inside Earthly Eve. This however does not state the power of Yaldabaoth, but the
reason why epinoia is inside Earthly Eve is clarified later, when it comes to Eve’s
rape.
epinoia acts and comes to Adam and awakens his mind from the
drunkenness of Yaldabaoth. Now Adam recognizes his fellow-essence (NHC III),
essence (BG) or image (NHC II). It seems that this recognizing is linked to the
activity of epinoia, so it should be a positive thing. However, the term ousia later
seems to refer in at least in NHC III 32, 1 to the sexual desire planted in Adam by
Yaldabaoth in order to shackle humans in to his physical world. In BG this term
refers also to the procreation BG 63, 7. In BG 64, 1 however the term ousia refers
to Seth’s descendants who share same essence as Seth, Adam’s son. There is
ambivalence in the term used in BG version. I think that in the creation scene
Adam knowing of his essence is a negative thing because it leads to the “becoming
one flesh” linking it to the procreation which is a negative thing in the Ap. John.
So, Adam recognizes his essence, Earthly Eve and after this becomes the marital
exclamation. How the awakening act of epinoia then fits to this picture is
uncertain. Since it is stated that epinoia lifted the veil from Adam’s mind and after
this he sobered it would be logical to think that sobering would refer to the seeing
epinoia. But who Adam recognizes? The positive interpretation of the
essence/fellow-essence or counter image would also refer to epinoia. But then
again the statement about marriage does not fit into the picture. Also, later it is
stated that epinoia (Christ in NHC II) taught Eve and Adam (NHC III and NHC

43
NHC II, 24, 14–15, see also chapter 3.2.

17
II) or Adam (BG) about knowledge, since both were in the state of ignorance. The
variation between humans cognitive status is strange. Next, I offer one solution on
how to interpret this difficult scene.
The central hermeneutical tool is the notion that the text tells this scene twice
and both times addresses that procreation is a negative thing: First Eve is created
from Adam, after this epinoia awakens Adam’s mind. After this follows the
marital exclamation of Adam and his recognition of Eve. After this epinoia
corrects the Adam’s exclamation by teaching both humans, or just Adam and
restores them from ignorance which is the accepting the sexual procreation
(becoming one flesh)

Narrative Hermeneutical tool Interpretation

Adam’s sleep (ignorance) Scene told twice, Marital exclamation
epinoia awakening of Listening the teaching of
Adam’s mind epinoia/Christ

I think that because of the difficult themes discussed in the text, the
ambivalence between epinoia and Earthly Eve exists. Even though the procreation
is considered a negative thing the Ap. John presents an idea about Seth and his
progeny, whose place is in the heavenly world. Since Seth’s race continued to
exist, the procreation somehow took place, although it was considered a negative
aspect of human life. This kind of ambivalence between Adam’s recognition of Eve
(his essence) or epinoia and the negative attitude towards procreation (which
inevitably takes place even in the case of Seth) causes the difficult setting of the
text. It can be said that Adam recognizes Eve, with the help of epinoia in every
version of the Ap. John. The reference to marriage links this knowing to Seth’s
origin, which is about to come, since it is the first time when Adam “knows” Eve.
Cain and Abel are the descendants of Yaldabaoth, so there is no need to link the
sexual relationship to Adam and Eve when it comes to the origin of Cain and Abel.
At his point, epinoia and Eve created by Yaldabaoth are connected. This
connection does not last long, as the following chapters will show.
The idea of epinoia as a helper of mankind, teaching humans to eat from the
tree of knowledge, links her to the character of Eve in Genesis, where Eve gives the

18
fruit to her husband. Adam also addresses epinoia as Mother of All Living,
connecting her to the character of Eve. In σώC II the attribute “δife” is linked
directly to epinoia, which is of course the Greek name of Eve in LXX. The
epithets of Life and the Mother of the Living are assigned to epinoia. Her actions
as a helper of Adam also link her to the character of Eve of Genesis. Earthly Eve
again works as a character to whom the negative aspects of womanhood in the
theology of the Ap. John can be attached, like the idea of becoming one flesh with
Adam. epinoia and Earthly Eve are connected but only because the texts have to
deal with the difficult fact that Seth has to be born.

3.1.2. The Nature of the Rulers

Eve’s creation is connected to Adam’s creation, since the Female Spirit comes
from the divine world to help the creation of the Rulers, Adam. This Female Spirit
has strong connections to the character of Eve in Genesis. The actions which take
place in the course of Female Spirit helping Adam lead to the creation of Earthly
Eve. In the Nat. Rul. many divine female beings are presented and linked to the
character of Eve. The Rulers create a man from the soil of the earth.44 The reason
for man’s creation is the female divine being Incorruptibility (tM_N_Tattako,
t_M_N_Tatteko) who looked down to the physical realm of the Rulers, who in turn
became lustful and wanted to grasp Incorruptibility for themselves.45
Incorruptibility is sometimes presented as an impersonal dimension, sometimes
divine being, which makes her character difficult to follow.46 Then again, this kind
of personification of abstract subjects is typical for Genesis interpretations in the
Nag Hammadi.47 To Incorruptibility another character is related, called Voice
(smh), who emerged from Incorruptibility to expose Yaldabaoth’sήSakla’s ignorant,
monotheistic claim.
pounoq de oubLl pe…afjoos xN tef[qom je] anok pepnoute mN
laau [ajNt]…eis ousmh de asei ebol xN tM_N_Tattako esjw Mmos
je kRplanasce samahl48

44
Nat. Rul.87:25–26. Cf. Gen. 1:26,
45
Nat.Rul. 87:12–16, 87:33–35.
46
Gilhus 1981, 78.
47
Cf. the Apocryphon of John and On the Origin of the World
48
Nat.Rul. 86:27–87:3.

19
 Their chief (lit. their oldest one) is blind…ώe said in his powerμ I am the God
and there is no other besides me…. But a voice came from the
Incorruptibility and said: You are mistaken Samael

auw zwh t¥eere Ntpistis tsovia asa¥kak ebol pejas naf je

kRplana sakla49

And Zoe (Life) the daughter of Pistis Sophia cried out and said: You are
mistaken Sakla.

As we can see, the same exposing action is linked to the character of zwh,
daughter of Pistis Sophia. Voice is also mentioned to come and help Adam in Nat.
Rul. 88, 17–18, using term bohcia, which is used also in LXX of Eve.50 Female
divine being coming to Adam is linked also to the work of a Spirit from the
Adamantine Land.
naei de throu au¥wpe xM pouw¥ Mpeiwt Mpthrf Mm_N_Nsa naei
a_P_N_A nau apirwme N-2yikos xijM pkax auw apP__N_A ei ebol xM pkax
Nadantinh afei epitN afouwx Nxhtf aprwme etMmau ¥wpe
au2uyh esonx

And all this happened with the will of the Father of the All. After these
(events that considered the creation of man and his inability to stand up) the
Spirit saw the psychical man upon the earth. And the Spirit came from the
Adamantine land. It came and inhabited inside the man, which became a
living soul. 51

In the text there is a connection between the characters of Incorruptibility, Voice,

zwh and Spirit, even though the references to deeds of the Voice and zwh are
presented later, in the parenetic discourse of Eleleth to Norea. Voice, zwh and
Spirit all work as a helpers of Adam, and that links them together. More feminine
characters are going to be presented, but first I need to enlighten the Rulers’ motifs
for the creation of Adam.
The reason the Rulers create Adam is that they plan to lure Incorruptibility
down to Adam, since they create Adam as Incorruptibility’s “male counterpart”
(pef¥bReine).52 The plot the Rulers made is actually a divine plan by the Father
of the All. The man created by the Rulers was unable to move, even though he got
a soul from his creators.53 After this the divine figures start their actions. At this

49
Nat.Rul. 95:5–6.
50
LXX Gen. 2:18.
51
Nat.Rul. 88:10–15.
52
Nat.Rul. 87:34–35.
53
Nat. Rul. 88:4–10.

20
point, the Spirit has come from the όather’s realm to help the creature of the
Rulers. It is stated that the Spirit is now inside the man, making it a living being.
This can be understood in a spiritual sense, meaning that because Adam got the
soul (2uyh) from the Rulers, he is alive in the sense that he has a soul. The Spirit
from the divine world makes him yet truly living, giving him an ability to stand up
like a human being and an intellectual capacity for naming the animals.54 Other
possibility is that the creation of the Rulers got a soul, but because they themselves
were imperfect and lacked the power, their creation could not move at all so it just
stayed on the ground. This scene presents that the divine Spirit makes human
alive.55 Bullard interprets Spirit not as Spirit from the Realm of Father but as a
Spirit from earth, linking it to the Orig. World..56 I think the interpretation I
presented above is more likely the case.
The author of the Nat. Rul. probably refers here to the 2. Cor.
ὃς καὶ ἱκ νωσεν ἡμᾶς διακ νους καινῆς διαθ κης, οὐ γρ μματος ἀλλὰ
πνε ματος τὸ γὰρ γρ μμα ἀποκτ ννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ… ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη
τὰ νο ματα αὐτῶν. ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σ μερον ἡμ ρας τὸ αὐτὸ κ λυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ
ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθ κης μ νει μὴ ἀνακαλυπτ μενον, ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ
καταργεῖται·… ὁ δὲ κ ριος τὸ πνεῦμ ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρ ου, ἐλευθερ α.
ἡμεῖς δὲ π ντες ἀνακεκαλυμμ νῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δ ξαν κυρ ου κατοπτριζ μενοι
τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκ να μεταμορφο μεθα ἀπὸ δ ξης εἰς δ ξαν, καθ περ ἀπὸ κυρ ου
πνε ματος.57

Since the Old Testament (the antithesis of καινῆς διαθ κης) and Spirit
(π ῦ α) are placed opposite to each other, this verse would fit in the theology of
the author of the Nat. Rul. The scene dealing with the Spirit’s work with Adam in
Nat. Rul. lacks linguistic connections to 2. Cor., but it fits the message of the text.
Paul refers here to Christ as Spirit, which would explain the masculine suffix -f in
Nat.Rul. 88:10–15. The Spirit from the Adamantine Land would be interpreted as
Christ. This interpretation explains the use of masculine suffix in this scene, but the

54
Gilhus 1981, 110.
55
This may be the case, since author of the Nat.Rul. appreciated Paul, he might have thought 2. Cor.
3:6 in this chapter. Since the Law of the OT and Spirit (πνεῦμα) are placed opposite each other, this
verse would fit to the theology of the author if the Nat. Rul. Identifying the Spirit with the person of
Christ would also explain the masculine suffix –f in this scene.
56
Bullard 1970, 67. Gilhus 1981, 100–101 links the Adamantine land to the realm of
Impersihability and I think it is the clearest solution, since the Spirit has a role of the divine
mediator who acts between the two worlds.
57
2. Cor. 3:6, 14, 17–18

21
more likely option is that because Spirit is a Greek loanword, the Coptic grammar
adds the masculine article, even if the word would refer to a feminine subject.58
The origin of the Spirit is dubious. Connection with Adam ( ָ ָ‫ )א‬and earth is
possible. Other possibility is the Greek word ἀδαμ ντ̆νος which refers to steel.
However, with this interpretation the connection with the Spirit and its origin
remains unsolved, since the reference to the steel is not used elsewhere in the Nat.
Rul. The world of the Rulers is not presented as a negative and hateful place as in
Ap. John but it is clear that Rulers world is only a shadow and an imperfect copy of
the realm of the Father.59 Of course, it is better for humans to be connected to the
Realm of the Father than to the realm of the Rulers. However, the same kind of
negative words as in Ap.John is not used.60 If the interpretation about the Spirit as a
Christ figure is correct, then it is evident that Spirit’s origin is also in the Realm of
Father.
The Spirit is now inside Adam and instructs him. The Rulers put Adam in
their garden, and finally decide to put him under the deep sleep of ignorance. This
they do in order to grasp the Spiritual element inside Adam.

auouen Mpefspir Nce Nnousxime esonx auw aukwt Mpefspir

Nnousar3 epesma auw aadam ¥wpe M2uyikos thpf
auw tsxime Mpneumatikh asi ¥arof as¥aje nMmaf pejas je
twoun adam auw Ntarefnau eros pejaf je Nto pentax+ naei
Mpwnx senamoute ero je tmaau Nnetonx je Ntos pe tamaau
Ntos te tsoein auw tsxime auw tentaxmise

They opened his side like a living woman. And they built his side with flesh.
And Adam became (was) a person with only a soul. And the Spiritual
Woman came to him and said (to him)μ “Rise Adam”. And when he saw her
he saidμ “You have given me life, you shall be called mother of the living, for
she is my mother, she is the physician and she is the one who has given
birth”. 61

58
Layton 2000, 85.
59
Cf. Nat.Rul. 93:29–32, 94:9–19, 94:34–95:4. Text supposes that physical world is created by the
Rulers. It does not elaborate the condition of the world, as the Ap.John does, but the cosmology and
cosmogony have clear connection in these texts. This is probably because both text share same basic
myth of cosmogony, Sophia’s fall and Yaldabaoth’s creation activity. See Rasimus 2ίίλ, ηζ.
Rasimus deals vastly with the origin of this creation myth, linking it to the Irenaeus’ descrition
about sect called Ophites, serpent-worshippers., whose mythology dealt with same kind of motives.
See also table in Rasimus 2ίίλ, θ2 for Rasimus’ division between different myths.
60
Ap. John NHC II 21, 6 – 12 et parr.
61
Nat. Rul. 88:19–89:7.

22
 The Spiritual Woman (the Spirit) leaves Adam before the Rulers catch her.
The term Nnousxime esonx probably refers to the Spiritual Woman. It would be
strange to think that the Spiritual Woman is somehow created again by the Rulers
and their surgery but the scene presents that Adam had the Spiritual element, then
Rulers somehow managed to erase it from him, but they did not grasp it. Now
Spiritual woman comes to Adam and he addresses her with name Mother of the
Living, Adam’s mother, the physician and the one who has given birth. The epithet
“εother of the δiving” refers to ύenesis 3:20, where in LXX Eve is called Ζω ,
ὅ αὕ πά ω ῶ ω . This happens in the Genesis story after the
expulsion from the Paradise, when in Nat.Rul. the naming scene is presented after
Adam is “awakened” by the Spiritual Woman. Now the Spiritual Woman, who is
connected to the Realm of the Father, is referred to as zwh, which connects her to
the character of Eve through the vocabulary of LXX.
Chapters presented above seem to connect the Voice from the Incorruptibility
and the figure of zwh as one, both have the same function, exposing the creator
god’s false claim. The figure of Eve is presented the following way. zwh is
connected to Voice who came from Incorruptibility. Voice is also said to help
Adam, and through this Voice is also linked to the Spirit which came from the
Adamantine land. Adam addresses the Spiritual Woman who awakens him on the
basis of LXX 3:20. This links the spiritual Woman to the character of Eve. Nat.
Rul. also uses the creation narrative, Adam’s sleep, surgeon of his side etc. to link
this scene to LXX. However, Spiritual Woman is not created by the Rulers, but she
plays the role of Eve and is connected to the divine world with the word play, using
the word zwh. It seems that zwh, daughter of Pistis Sophia, the Voice who helps
Adam (and exposes Yaldabaoth’s false claim) and the Spiritual Woman and also
Spirit from the Adamantine Land are actually the same figure. The name Eve, euxa
is not mentioned in this part of the narrative but it is clear that the name zwh from
the LXX and the word play connected to Eve’s role as the εother of all the δiving
and the divine figure zwh connects the Spiritual Woman to the character of Eve.
This “ώeavenly Eve” however is not created from the rib of man:62, actually, she is
not created at all. Nor is she the mother of the living in the sense that her role is to

62
Gilhus 1981, 113.

23
give birth, but she gives life, she awakens Adam from the deadly sleep of
ignorance.
Creation of Earthly Eve takes place when the Rulers see Adam’s counterpart
(tef¥bReine) speaking with him. “Counterpart” is a term that links Adam and
Incorruptibility together as I have presented in the beginning of this subchapter.
The Rulers become lustful and try to grasp her, with violent sexual intentions.63
Adam’s female counterpart however escapes from the Ruler’s hands and leaves a
shadow resembling herself under the Rulers’ power.
Ntarounau de atef¥bReine es¥aje nMmaf au¥tortR xN ounoq
N¥tortR auw aumereitS pejau Nnouerehu je amheitN NtNnouje
MpNsperma exrai ejws auRdiwke Mmos auw asswbe Nswou ebol
xN toum_N
_ T
_ atcht mN toum_NT _ bLle auw asR ou¥h(n) Ntootou askw
Ntesxaibes eseine Mmos xatootou

But when they (the Rulers) saw his female counterpart speaking with him,
they were disturbed greatly. And they fell in love with her and said to one
another: Come, let us sow our seed in her and they pursued her. And she
laughed at them because of their mindlessness and their blindness. And in
their clutches she became a tree and left her shadowy reflection of herself
with them.

Now the character of Eve is split into two. The Female counterpart/ the Spiritual
Woman escapes from the Rulers and leaves her reflection or likeness (eine) to
them. After this split there are two Eve’sν The Heavenly and the Earthly one.
Earthly Eve is a production of the heavenly one, namely her reflection. It is also
possible that Rulers see Adam’s speaking with Eve, his counterpart and after
Heavenly Eve escapes from the Rulers she leaves Eve, who now becomes only
Earthly one. This interpretation emphasises the character of Eve as human who has
a spiritual element inside her. I argue that using the term tef¥bReine links
Adam’s counterpart to the being who is completely Spiritual, maybe finally to
Incorruptibility itself. When linking the characters of zwh, Spiritual Woman and
Spirit and Voice and Incorruptibility together, they would all be characters of the
same feminine goddess. Earthly Eve’s function is to mislead the Rulers so that they
think that they are actually grasping the figure of Incorruptibility according to their
original plan. Earthly Eve is left under the hostile actions of the Rulers while
Heavenly Eve turns into a tree and escapes from the Rulers. This kind of
interpretation seems to serve two functions. First, the Heavenly Eve maintains her

63
Nat. Rul. 89:20–23.

24
virginity or purity and that way she can be dealt with as a wholly spiritual being.
ώeavenly Eve’s transforming into a tree also serves a mythological function, it
connects the Heavenly Eve with the tree of knowledge, which becomes important
later. Other function is that through the Earthly Eve the Rulers present their
mindlessness and ignorance. They think that they are pulling the strings of the play,
when they try to seize Heavenly Eve but because of their ignorance they are only
able to grasp the shadowy reflection of Heavenly Eve. Nat. Rul. seems to present a
mind-set which can be seen as a certain kind of Voice theology: While the Voice
(smh) comes to help Adam, gives Adam the ability to name (moute) animals in
the Paradise and the Spiritual Woman speaks or discusses (es¥aje) with Adam
with positive results, the Rulers only manage to grasp the seal of ώeavenly Eve’s
voice – without even noticing it.64

3.1.3. On the Origin of the World

The creation of Eve differs from the ones presented in other Genesis interpretations
I am dealing with. In the Ap. John and the Nat. Rul. the creation of Eve is related to
the actions of the evil powers trying to seize the divine element inside their creation
Adam, but Orig. World the creative act is linked to the divine female being, Zoe-
Eve, Pistis Sophia’s daughter. I will first summarize the cosmology of the text and
after this deal with the character of Eve.
The text does not elaborate much on the divine world and it does not present
the same kind of Middle Platonist theology about the One and its emanations as the
Ap. John. It still presents the theme about Sophia’s fall or some kind of mistake
which led to the origin of Yaldabaoth, the evil godlike being.65 In the Orig. World
the creative process is linked primarily to Pistis Sophia who forms the matter and
Yaldabaoth merely makes things from the material which he sees around him. This
also makes him think that he is the only god.66
Zoe-Eve is mentioned to be the daughter of Pistis Sophia, who works as a
mediator figure. She helps Sabaoth, a minion of Yaldabaoth who then turned to the
side of Pistis-Sophia, and was lifted to the Seventh heaven. So Sabaoth is a positive

64
The connection to the prologue of the Gospel of John and the connecting Logos with Christ is
very hypothetical, but this kind of interpretation could explain some features of the text, like
problematic masculine suffix in 88:10–15 and the term physician, which is a term used from Christ
by Ignatios of Antioch. Ign. Ef. 7:2
65
Orig. World. 100:1-10.
66
Orig. World. 103:10–11.

25
figure in the Orig. World.67 Zoe-Eve also helps the creation of Yaldabaoth, Adam.
Adam is formed by the model of the Adam of Light, emissary who dwells in the
divine world.68The Adam of Yaldabaoth is created after Yaldabaoth and his
minions see the Adam of Light withdrawing to his own aeon. Yaldabaoth and his
Powers decide to lure him back with his likeness (eine) and so they create their
Adam. The text says that the creative process of the evil beings is a plan of Zoe-
Eve, through which the humans may learn how to escape from the clutches of the
Yaldabaoth.69 The texts present the idea that Sophia first creates her own,
androgynous man but this theme is not elaborated more. The creation is somehow
related to the instructor, meaning Zoe-Eve and her role as Adam’s instructor in the
Orig. World.70
The creation of Yaldabaoth is without spirit, only with soul. Sophia Zoe
sends her breath to Adam, now making him a person with a soul. Adam gets the
ability to move (probably like animals, with four legs or then crawling like a
serpent) but is not able to stand up. Somehow the soul from the Sophia Zoe could
answer the questions of Yaldabaoth and his forces, and because they were afraid of
him and put Adam into(their) garden. Finally Zoe-Eve, the daughter of Pistis
Sophia was sent to help Adam.
Nt]a[r]e euxa nau epes¥bReine efnhj as¥N xths xarof auw
pejas je adam wnx twoun xijM pkax… Ntare adam gar twoun
Nteunou afouen Nnefbal. Ntarefnau eros pejaf je
Ntoeunamoute ero je tmaau Nnetonx je Nto petax+ naei
Mpwnx

When Eve saw her male co-essence71 on the ground she had pity over him
and saidμ Adam, come alive! Rise from the ground… όor Adam rose and at
that moment he opened his eyes and when he saw her he said: You shall be
called Mother of the living, you have given me life.72

The opening of soul-Adam’s mind has now taken place. The text supposes the
connection between Sophia-Zoe and the character of Eve. Eve is one epithet of
Sophia-Zoe and she is referred to with the same features as Eve in the LXX

67
Same theme is present also in the Nat. Rul.
68
Orig. World. 108:19–20.
69
Orig. World. 113:19–20.
70
Orig. World. 113:30.
71
I translated the Coptic ¥bR as prefix co (Greek ), not as partner as Meyer, or counterpart as
Layton have translated. Painchaud translates as co-ressemblance which presents the idea that Adam
and Sophia Zoe are connected to each other essentially. Adam’s likeness is linked to the heavenly
figure of Adam of Light, created by the forethought of the Pistis (Sophia?)
72
Orig. World 116:1–8

26
tradition: She is the Mother of the Living and her name is also connected to life.73
Whether this derives from the Hebrew or the Greek name of Eve is uncertain. Once
the connection between the character of Eve and the divine characters Pistis Sophia
and Sophia Zoe has been clarified we can move to the creation of Eve. The creation
takes place after the authorities notice that their Adam has arisen.74 They send
archangels to see what has happened and they see Eve talking to Adam. Because
they want to cast their seed into her to make her unable to return back to light and
also to get Eve’s offspring to be under their rule. They cast Adam into the sleep and
decide to lie to Adam that Eve is created from his rib in order to subordinate her
under Adam’s rule.75
tote euxa es¥oop Ndunamis asswbe Nsa tougnwmh as+ clastN
enoubal askw Mmau Mpeseine Njioue atouN adam asbwk exoun
ep¥hn Ntgnwsis asqw Mmau Ntoou de auouwx Nsws asouwnx
ebol nau je asbwk exoun ep¥hn asR ¥hn

Then Eve being a force laughed at their decision. She put mist onto their eyes
and secretly left her likeness with Adam. She entered into the tree of
knowledge and remained there and they pursued her and she revealed to them
that she had gone into the tree and become a tree.76

The creation of Eve takes place when Zoe-Eve decides to flee from the evil powers.
Eve leaves her likeness with Adam and flees into the tree of knowledge herself. It
is notable that the creation happens before the powers try to grasp Eve. Eve also
creates her copy/image herself as a deceit to the powers. This scene starts the
inversion of the parts: evil powers first planned to lure Adam of Light with his
counter image to their world, after that they wanted to grasp Eve. Now they
themselves are lured with the likeness of Eve, even though they seem to notice that
Eve is actually gone into the tree of knowledge. In the Orig. World the Earthly Eve
is a creation of the Zoe-Eve. Zoe-Eve is not created, but she is an integral part of
the divine world like the Spiritual Woman in Nat. Rul.
Zoe-Eve is connected to the character of Genesis Eve first through her name
(zwh) and through Adam’s testimony about Zoe-Eve as the “εother of all the
living”. The likeness of Zoe-Eve, Earthly Eve again is not addressed at all with
epithets which could link her to the Eve of Genesis. She truly is only a poor

73
There are clear links to the Nat. Rul.
74
Orig. World 116:9–11.
75
Orig. World 116:11–25
76
Orig. World 116:25–32

27
reflection of Zoe-Eve. I think the use of attributes of Eve from the Genesis to the
divine female figures serves two central points: First of all, they make clear that the
divine female figure is the one who gives life. In spiritual sense, she gives the true
life and enables the spiritual awakening of the race of perfect humans. Zoe-Eve is a
figure that can be worshipped as the giver of life, mother of the perfect humans.
Another point comes from the interpretation of the Old Testament and especially
resisting certain type of Old Testament interpretations. Since the plethora of Jewish
and Christian interpretations of Genesis stressed that humans (usually Eve) acted
wrong in Paradise and that through this event also the character of Eve was also in
a way demonized. Because the starting point for exegesis presented in Orig. World
is that god of the Old Testament is an evil and ignorant one, use of the character of
Eve offers a good tool for counter exegesis – in most traditions Eve was the person
to blame. The counter exegesis takes the person to whom the expulsion from
Paradise was linked, made her a heroine and by that drop the great god of the Old
Testament to the lowest level, as the ignorant creator god.

3.1.4. The Testimony of Truth

Testimony of Truth lacks the creation account. It is difficult to say, first of all if the
author had a concise creation narrative in his world view at all and on the other
hand if he had a theological system dealing with topics like cosmogony and
anthropology where the story about Eve’s (and Adam’s) creation played any role.
Some notions about the theological thinking behind the text and its relation to the
creation narrative can be made. Because the text actually does not deal with the
creation narrative per se it is impossible to say for sure what the author thought
about the creation of the first humans. So it is evident that my solutions are
hypothetical.
The text does not present the creation narrative. Since the author critics many
Christian groups, it is perhaps possible to trace something of their creation
theology and try to considere whether the author of the Test. Truth. also criticized
their creation theology. The only possible group on whose creation theology is
possible to say at least something about are the followers of Valentinus.77 I cannot
go into a very detailed discussion about Valentinian theologies in the course of this

77
Test. Truth. 56:2–9.

28
study.78 Also, the Valentinian theology developed during the first centuries and
without certain dating of the texts it is hazardous to think what kind of Valentinian
theology the author opposes. According to the sources, it seems that the idea about
the Demiurge in the course of the creation of Adam belongs to the Valentinian
creation mythology.79 Also the distinction between Adam and Eve and interpreting
the two humans allegorically as ontologically different “seeds” are also presented
in some sources.80 Valentinian theology presents the idea that Adam and Eve were
created by the Demiurge whose nature was not that malicious as the one presented
in Ap. John. Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. The Test. Truth again considers the creator
god as evil. Test. Truth. does not present any hints to the creation of Adam and
Eve. There is also no sign of about the same kind of separation of Eve from Adam
that is presented with the theme that the creator god chases the divine element
inside the humans. It is clear however that the god of the Old Testament has same
features as Yaldabaoth in other texts. Perhaps the most important notion is that the
idea about a good divine spiritual essence (like epinoia or Heavenly Eve) is not
present in the text. So probably the author probably did not think that the creation
of Eve would have been the same kind of process as in other texts. The main theme
in the Genesis interpretation of the Test. Truth is that the god of the Old Testament
is evil and malicious. It is impossible to say for sure was Eve created by the Old
Testament god, from Adam’s rib as the ύenesis narrative presents, or was there a
same kind of creation theology in the author’s world view as is seen in Ap. John,
Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. At least the creation is not a theme that the author wants
to elaborate on, he is more concerned about the correct, ascetic behaviour and
understanding of the Scriptures. The creation narrative did not play any crucial
function in the theology of the text. It is clear that somebody created humans, but
the author does not elaborate on this any further.

3.1.5. Conclusions to Eve’s Creation

In Ap. John, Nat. Rul. and Orig. World the creation of Eve plays an important role
in the theology of the text. In the versions of Ap. John presented in NHC III and
78
For comprehensive study of the building blocks and development of the doctrines, see Thomassen
2006, especially part III. As Thomassen’s work shows, Valentinianism and its theology developed
during time, sometimes to the different directions depending on the which branch of Valentinianism
is discussed.
79
Thomassen 2006, 44 quotes Hippolytos.
80
Thomassen 2006, 64, 377. Passages Thomassen cites are from the heresiological opus of Clement
of Alexandria called Excerpts from Theodotus.

29
BG the figure of epinoia hides herself inside Adam. Eve is created when
Yaldabaoth wants to grasp epinoia, without succeeding in it. Yaldabaoth then
creates Eve. The NHC II version again adds that Yaldabaoth succeeds in removing
something from Adam (not epinoia) and he creates Eve according to the likeness
of epinoia. In NHC III and BG epinoia teaches humans to eat from the Tree of
Knowledge, in NHC II Christ teaches them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge,
which is epinoia. In all versions the attributes of the Genesis Eve are attested to
the character of epinoia, while the marital exclamation refers to the Earthly Eve,
even though this part is somewhat unclear because epinoia is linked also somehow
to that event. This is because the Ap. John tries to connect two things together: The
fact that Seth must be born, which this demands sexual intercourse and the idea that
sexual intercourse is a negative thing which is used by Yaldabaoth to chain humans
in to the physical world.
The Nat. Rul. presents the figure of Spiritual Woman, Heavenly Eve who
comes to help the creation of the evil Rulers. She hides herself inside Adam (like
epinoia in Ap. John) and the Rulers try to erase her with the surgery-like process.
This causes the separation of Adam and Heavenly Eve. However, Heavenly Eve
returns to Adam and awakens his mind. Heavenly Eve is called with the names that
link her to the character of Eve in LXX. When the Rulers see the Heavenly Eve
discussing with Adam they decide to rape her, which underlines the hostile nature
of the Rulers. Heavenly Eve escapes by transforming into a tree and leaving her
likeness, Earthly Eve under the powers of the Rulers. The same kind of process can
be seen in Orig. World. The divine Zoe-Eve is sent to help Adam. It is not stated
that she inhabits inside Adam, as in the Nat. Rul. The evil powers see Adam who is
instructed by Zoe-Eve and decide to rape her. Eve escapes by entering into a tree
not transforming into one, as happens in the Nat. Rul. She leaves her resemblance
with Adam it is then defiled by the authorities while the purity and the virginity of
the Zoe-Eve is maintained. References to Eve’s role as the mother of the living and
her function as a helper of Adam are linked to the Spiritual Woman and to Zoe-Eve
in Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. Earthly Eve is created by the Heavenly Eve, not by
the Rulers or Powers. Texts from the NHC II all include the idea that
epinoia/Spiritual Woman/Zoe-Eve are somehow related to the tree of Paradise. In
the case of epinoia, the escape scene is however not mentioned.

30
 Test. Truth does not present the creation narrative. It is possible that the
author opposed the same kind of creation narrative which is presented in my other
source texts, if he for example opposed Valentinian doctrines in toto. This is
however dubious and most likely the creation narrative was interpreted in the
theology of the author according to the Genesis text. The creation of Eve would
have been understood in a negative sense because through the creation of Eve the
sexual union and procreation finally took place in the Paradise. The Test. Truth
does not deal with divine female figures, so same kind of separation of Eves was
not needed in the text. I presume that if these were central to the theology of the
Test. Truth there would have been at least some traces in the text.

3.2. The Rape of Eve

This chapter presents the rape of Eve, how it happens and which factors take part in
this scene. Possible traditions used in this part are presented and the possible
function of the scene is reflected.

3.2.1. The Apocryphon of John

NHC III 31, 6–12.
Then he saw the virgin
(parcenos) standing by
Adam. Yaldabaoth was
full of ignorance and he
wanted to raise a seed
from her.
[And] he defiled
(afjwxem) her and he
begot the [first] child and
similarly the [second]
BG 62, 3–11.
Then Yaldabaoth saw the
virgin (parcenos) who
stood by Adam. He was
full of ignorance so that
he wanted to raise up a
seed from her.
He defiled (afjaxmes)
her and begot the first
child and similarly the
second
NHC II 24, 8–18.
And the Chief Ruler saw
the virgin (parcenos)
who stood by Adam and
that the luminous
epinoia of Life had
appeared in her. And
Yaldabaoth was full
ignorance. And when the
pronoia of the All
notices she sent
emissaries (NNxoeine)
and they stole Life (zwh)
out of Eve. And the Chief
Ruler defiled her and he
begot in her two sons

31
 In NHC III Yaldabaoth sees the virgin standing next to Adam and it is stated
that Yaldabaoth wants to raise a seed from her. The text reads “he defiled her”. In
BG version the text is basically same. An interesting notion is that in BG the will to
raise a seed from the virgin derives from Yaldabaoth’s ignorance (focalizing
converter in efouwš, meaning “because Yaldabaoth was full of ignorance, he
wanted to raise a seed from the virgin”). The BG version links the ignorance of
Yaldabaoth to the sexual lust.
In NHC II the narrative about the rape is elaborated on a bit more. The figure
of epinoia who is mentioned to become as a helper to Adam81, appears. The Chief
Ruler sees the virgin, like in the texts from BG and NHC III, but also that epinoia
had appeared in the virgin, Eve. When Yaldabaoth decides to defile the virgin,
another heavenly figure, Providence (pronoia) takes the Life (zwh) out of Eve.
The Eve without Life is now raped.
This scene echoes the tradition presented in Jewish text called Pirke de-Rabbi
Eliezer (PRE).82 In PRE angel Sammael rode with the serpent in Paradise and
conceived Cain with Eve.83 Also Babylonian Talmud and Genesis Rabbah, a
collection of interpretative passages to the Hebrew Bible, present interpretations
where Serpent is lusting for Eve sexually.84 Nevertheless, according to Adelman
the (textual) tradition about Eve having sex with Samma’el is presented clearly for
first time in rabbinical sources in PRE. In the rape scene of the Ap. John the name
of the Chief Ruler is Yaldabaoth, but in the text he is also referred as Samma’el, so
I do not see any problem with the idea that there is a connection with the tradition
of the PRE and Ap. John. Also the negative image of the serpent (I will deal with
that theme later) in Ap. John points to the tradition(s) where the serpent, devil
Samma’el and the relationship between him and Eve was known. The fact that in
some Jewish traditions Cain was connected to angelic origin hints that the Ap. John
uses this kind of Jewish tradition, but also expands them to involve also Abel to
Yaldabaoth’s family.85 The difference to the rabbinical traditions seems to be that

81 NCH II, 21, 14–16.

82
Dating of this complication of Midrash is problematic, but it clearly is written later than Nag
Hammadi text. However, I find it important to present these traditions in my work, because they
have parallels to my source texts.
83
This tradition is of course important when it comes to part 3.η in my work, dealing with Eve’s
Children. The reason for the use of this tradition will be dealt more in that chapter.
84
Adelman 2009, 101.
85
Cain as a son of demon Samma’el see εartínez 2ίίζ, 21.

32
they stress the Samma’el’s seductive role. In Genesis interpretations of the Nag
Hammadi the violent and lustful character of the creator god is stressed. He does
not seduce, but acts violently according to his desires.
Now I want to focus to the figure of epinoia. In all manuscripts, she is a
heavenly helper who comes from the heavenly realm to the material world to
instruct and help Adam. This is the interpretation of the Genesis 2:18 where God
decides to create a partner for Adam as his helper. epinoia is called Life86, which
is the name of Eve in the LXX.87 The allusion between epinoia from heaven and
Eve (zwe) of LXX is clear. However, there is ambiguity in the figure of epinoia.
It is mentioned that she hid herself inside Adam and on the other hand she is
identified with the Tree of Knowledge.88 This is of course the forbidden tree of
Genesis 2:17. The fact that epinoia is mentioned as the same time being inside
Adam and being the Tree of Knowledge is not problematical. It is possible that in
the Ap. John eating from the tree (opening of eyes, knowing good and bad) is a
symbol for listening to the instruction or teaching of the epinoia. In this sense, one
could understand the tree symbolism and the problem with epinoia being in two
places at the same time. With the stealing of Life from Eve, the author of the NHC
II probably wanted to stress the idea that Yaldabaoth’s violent act defiled only
Earthly Eve but the Heavenly figure of epinoia is left untouched. It is questionable
whether in the mythical world of Ap. John. the ignorant Yaldabaoth could actually
defile heavenly epinoia, but at least redaction in the NHC II at least eliminates this
possibility. In NHC III and BG the fleeing of epinoia is not mentioned. It is not
likely that the authors of the NHC III and BG would have erased the epinoia’s
fleeing from the Earthly Eve. Of course, when reading the versions in NHC III and
BG it becomes clear that epinoia who inhabited inside Adam is not erased from
him like in the NHC II, where it is stated that something was taken from him and
that Eve was formed in the likeness of epinoia. So, in the case of NHC III and BG
there was no need for securing epinoia’s virginity because she did not inhabit
inside Earthly Eve. More likely the case is that the author of the NHC II has added
the fleeing scene to the NHC II version. When dealing with the Nat. Rul. and Orig.
World the same kind of fleeing tradition can be seen. I think the reason for this is

86 BG 53:10, NHC III 25, 11, NHC II 20, 18.

87
Genesis 3:20.
88 BG 57, 11–12, NHC III 28, 7–9 NHC II 22,4–5.

33
the following: The NHC II presents an interpretation which shows Yaldabaoth’s or
evil powers activity in the world. They really try to grasp the divine element which
is inside humans, and the texts in NHC II interpret this grasping as an attempt of
rape, linking the actions of the evil powers to sexuality and acting according to
their sexual desire. This is presented in NHC II in a mythological way but person
who reads the ascetical tendencies in the codex II can find a reason for her or his
struggles in the everyday world. Evil powers try to grasp the divine essence inside
Christians, as it is told in the texts of the NHC II. So NHC II is some kind of a
handbook to the religious ascetic reader, who is under the oppression of the evil
powers. Symbolism is not sociology89, but this kind of interpreting of myths in the
actual social situation of the readers offers an interesting insight to the functions of
the texts and to the functions of the whole codices.90
Another reason to this redaction can be found from the section which
comes after the mention of the birth of Cain and Abel. It is stated in all manuscripts
that because of the action of the Chief Ruler (referring to the rape of Eve) sexual
intercourse continued and existed up to the present day and through this action
Yaldabaoth planted the sexual desire in Adam (σώC III & Bύ versions) or “in her
who belongs to Adam” (σώC II) meaning naturally Eve.91 So it is seems that NHC
II presents a tradition where sexual desire is linked to the figure of Earthly Eve.
The sexual desire also derives from Yaldabaoth’s activity. So it is somewhat
unnatural and at least a negative thing, something that Yaldabaoth has planted in
the humans, especially to women. The reason especially for the tradition where Eve
is raped by the malicious creator god seems to stem from the idea that through this
action the texts also validate the origin of Eve’s children. όirst two are not from
Adam, and in the case of NHC II they certainly have nothing to do with the figure
of epinoia, i.e. the Heavenly Eve. The rape also underlines the hostility of
Yaldabaoth. As a polemical text Ap. John uses very harsh language when
describing the character of the Old Testament god. He is a sexually violent,
ignorant being whose action sowed the sexual lust to humans. Here is probably the
critique of the Gen. 1:28, and it underlines the ascetic tendency of Ap. John.

89
D’angelo 1λκκ, 2ίι.
90
Pagels 1988, 187–188 presents good insights to the social function of the texts.
91
NHC III 31:21–24; BG 63:1–9; NHC II 24:31

34
3.2.2. The Nature of the Rulers
The rape of Eve takes part in Nat. Rul. after the awakening of Adam. The Rulers
see Adam speaking with his counterpart, referring to the scene where Heavenly
Eve instructs Adam. Becoming lustful they decide to sow their seed (NtNnouje
MpNsperma exraÏi) to Adam’s counterpart, ώeavenly Eve. ώowever, ώeavenly
Eve escapes the rulers by becoming a tree and leaving a shadow of her likeness or
resemblance with the rulers (asR ou¥h(n) Ntootou askw Ntesxaibec
e[s]eine Mmos xatootou), which they defile (aujoxm[es]).92 This operation
has a clearly sexual connotation. The scene resembles the episode in the Ap. John
version in the NHC II and IV, where the figure of epinoia leaves Earthly Eve
before Yaldabaoth’s action, but the escaping to the tree is missing from Ap. John. It
is probable that Heavenly Eve transforms into the Tree of Knowledge. The myth
about a woman transforming into a tree in order to escape from the hands of a
violent assaulter is known already from the Greek tradition, from the story about
satyr Pan and a Dryad who escaped Pan’s raping attempt by transforming into a
tree.93 This kind of transformation tradition is not known from the Jewish literature
so the origin of the tradition must be in the Greek mythical tradition.
The defiling of Eve probably rises from the same rabbinical tradition as the
one presented in Ap. John. The tradition preserved in Nat. Rul. is then combined
with the Greek myth dealing with escaping from a lustful god by the transformation
and the tradition which dealt with Eve’s sexual relationship with the devil-like
being(s), which can be found from PRE.94 This tradition presents that fallen angel
Samma’el rode with the serpent in Paradise and conceived Cain with Eve.95 Also
Babylonian Talmud and Genesis Rabbah, collection of interpretative passages to
the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, present interpretations in which the serpent is
lusting for Eve sexually.96 The difference between the traditions of Nat. Rul. and
PRE is that the latter does not seem to presuppose violent activity by Samma’el,
unlike the tradition used in Nat. Rul or at least PRE does not explicitly mention the
rape of Eve. Seductive motif also points to Eve’s willingness to sex with

92
Nat. Rul. 89:25–29.
93
Pearson 1976, 413–415 links this tradition recorded by author Longus to the scene in Nat. Rul.
Layton also presents Greek iconographical evidence about the transforming scene.
94
Pirqe de-rabbi Eliezer 21, in Adelman 2009, 99.
95
This tradition is of course important when it comes to part 3.η in my work, dealing with Eve’s
Children. The reason for the use of this tradition will be dealt more in that chapter.
96
Adelman 2009, 101.

35
Samma’el. I think that during the tradition process of the Nat. Rul. the author used
tradition which included the rape attempt of the divine being and escaping from
that by turning into a tree. This tradition he took from the Greek mythology. Other
tradition he used was of Jewish origin, which dealt with the actions of the
Yaldabaoth/Devil and dealt with the sexual relationship between him and Eve.
Judeo-Christian traditions knows the legend about the copulation between angels
and women and considers this as a negative thing. This tradition presented in Gen.
6 and in 1. Enoch states that angels seduced women with jewelry and incantations,
but does not mention the rape.97 In Nat.Rul. the author would have reworked the
angel theme of Gen. 6 to correspond it with the violent activity of the Samma’el
and his minions.98 With this combination of different traditions the author produced
a scene where Heavenly Eve escapes the rape and transforms into a tree while
Earthly Eve is raped by the Rulers. Transforming into a tree also has strong links to
the trees in Paradise, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. This has an
important function when it comes to the eating from the tree scene and the
interpretation of the Genesis text in Nat. Rul.
The rape of Earthly Eve serves various purposes. I will first focus on the
Rulers’ action when it comes to the rape. It is stated that the rulers defiled the “seal
of her voice, so that they condemned only themselves from their molding, which
they made with their image”.99 The action of the Rulers not only present their
violent, lustful and also ignorant nature, but also underlines that through this action
the Rulers actually did something to their own essence or at least the way they now
exist in the physical world. The sequence presents that the Rulers cannot control
their passions but are convicted to act according to them. Only Sabaoth, one of
Yaldabaoth’s minions, is able to repent and he is taken away from the world of
Yaldabaoth.100 Linking the inability to control their passions and a sort of
“imperfection” to the Rulers one could also think that they are not sovereign beings
but weak creatures that can be resisted. I think that one purpose for presenting the

97
1. Enoch 6-8, see Charlesworth 2009, vol 1.
98
1. Enoch 6-8.
99
Nat. Rul. 89:29–30.
100
Through this Yaldabaoth starts to envy Sabaoth and produces Envy, abstract power to his realm.
Sabaoth’s role is first of all cosmological, his place in the seventh sphere, he rules angels etc. So his
function is to clear in the cosmology of the text. This however does not mean that in theory the
Rulers were able to repent and act correctly. Of course because of their nature they did not and they
continued suppressing humans in their world. Sabaoth is the only exception.

36
rape of Eve is that it underlines the Rulers’ imperfection and negativity. This also
leads also to the conclusion that the creator of the man and probably also the
creator of the physical world was considered an evil being. Even though the same
kind of corrective phrases (It was not like εoses said…) as in Ap. John are missing
in the text it is clear that we are dealing with corrective exegesis of the first Genesis
chapters and the attitude of the text towards the creation is probably a negative one.
Gilhus presents that Earthly Eve is created because the text presupposes that
something from the divine world, possibly the same kind of light-material as
presented in Ap. John, was trapped in the world of the Rulers and that Earthly Eve
is a tool in a conspiracy of the heavenly world to regain this light material.101 The
Nat. Rul. deals with the same themes as Ap. John, the error of Sophia but it does
not present the idea that light-material or the like would have been trapped inside
humans. Her proposal is possible but I think that the main purpose of this text is
not to present the restoration of the light-material to the heavenly world, but to
show the goodness of the divine female beings by stressing their assisting role in
the course of events and present the negative essence of the evil powers which
inhabit the physical world. The reason why the text presents different kind of races
of humans, like one of Cain’s or one of σorea’s, is that sociologically there are
always distinctions between different social groups. The readers of the Nat. Rul. of
course are a part of σorea’s descendants, and those who are not a part of their
group can be linked to the genealogy of the Rulers.

3.2.3. On the Origin of the World

When trying to pursuit the Heavenly Eve the powers were blinded by her.
After they had recovered from the daze, they saw the copy of the Heavenly Eve.
MmnNsws Nt[ap]ounhve xN tB¥e auei exou(n) ¥[a] a[dam a]uw
Ntarounau apine Nth xatootF au¥tortR eumeeye je taei te
euxa Nalhcinh auw auRtolma auei exoun ¥aros auemaxte Mmos
aunouje Mpousperma exraï ejws auaas xN oumNtpanourgos
eujwxM ou monon vusikws alla xN ouswwf eujwxM Ntsvragis
Mpesxroou N¥orp Ntax¥aje nMmau je ou pet¥oop xi tetNexh
atrou jwxm Nnetjw Mmos je xitM p¥aje eujpo Mmoou xN
tsunteleia xitN prwme Nalhceinos
auw auRplana ensesooun anje NtaujaxM pouswma pine pe
NtaujaxmF Nqi ne3ousia xNsmot nim Mn nouaggelos

101
Gilhus 1981, 114–115.

37
 After they recovered from the sleep (of some kind of loss of cognitive
capacities) they went to Adam. And when they saw the likeness of that
woman with him they were shocked for they thought that she was the true
Eve, and they acted recklessly. They came to her, grasped her and ejaculated
their seed in her. They did so wickedly. They defiled not only in natural ways
but (also) with abomination defiling the seal of her voice that had spoken to
themμ “What is that which exists before youς” In this way they meant also to
defile those who say that they have been born at the end of the age, by the
word, by the True Human. And the powers and their angels erred. They did
not know that they defiled their own body and likeness in every way.102

The rape scene in Orig. World. makes two things clear. The Powers are ignorant,
since they think that the woman they see is the “true Eve”. The preceding actions
present that powers actually saw and knew that Zoe-Eve has moved into the tree of
knowledge but now somehow they forget that event and still think that the true Eve
is with Adam. The text underlines that the Powers defile Eve. The stressing of the
defilement is twofold: first as natural way and also with abomination is intriguing.
Clearly these reflect the behaviour of the powers. The text may mean that the rape
was a defiling act (the Powers rape Eve who becomes pregnant) but their act turns
against them. Because of their error they defile their own body and likeness. This
defilement cannot refer to the defilement of Earthly Eve, because she actually is
not the “body” or likeness of the Powers. Earthly Eve is a creation, a reflection of
Zoe-Eve. So I think this phrase underlines that through their violent action the
Powers just condemn themselves, showing also their ignorance and imperfection.
What is the reason for this presentation of Eve? First of all, the purity of the
Zoe-Eve is maintained. She enters into the tree of knowledge which can be
identified later in the story. The Powers are connected to the god of the Old
Testament, though not very strongly. The strongest links are the rewriting of
Genesis narrative, use of other Biblical material like Isaiah and Psalms and
describing Yaldabaoth’s sons Ya and Eloai which are names of the Old Testament
god. The name Yaldabaoth also connect this text to the other two Genesis
interpretation. It is not stated that Yaldabaoth creates the garden. The tendency to
see the Old Testament negatively is not as strong as in the Ap. John or in the Nat.
Rul., but it exists in the Orig. World. The Powers are evil and ignorant and they try
to trap the Adam of light through their own creation.103

102
Orig. World. 116:33–117:14.
103
Orig. World. 112:33–113:2.

38
 Later it is stated that the rape of Eve was actually a plan by the Pronoia, so
that through the action of the prime parent (Yaldabaoth) his sons would become
enclosures of the light and through the Earthly Eve would probably be born and
become enlightened and escape from the Powers.104 Through this the light material
of Yaldabaoth probably moved to the humans, to the children of earthly Eve. This
light material then is now mixed between every kind of humans. The rape scene
apparently sets the stage for the following discussion about the different classes of
humans, and some classes can be linked to the rape of the Powers.

3.2.4. The Testimony of Truth

This text does not refer to the rape of Eve. Only passage where Eve is mentioned is
the serpent-Midrash, but there is no reference of any sort in the mythology that Eve
was raped by the Devil or by the god of the Old Testament, in contrast to that what
can be seen from the three other texts. In other texts the rape of Eve is one section
of narrative but since the Test. Truth. lacks this coherent Genesis interpretation, it
is understandable that this mythology is not presented in the text. The text presents
a negative attitude towards procreation and sexuality and indicates that the god of
the Old Testament is an evil one, so the rape would fit perfectly to the character of
the Old Testament god. However, in other texts of my study the rape scene has an
important role both in drawing a negative picture of the Yaldabaoth and also in
dividing a line between the children of the Yaldabaoth (Cain, possibly Abel) and to
the “spiritual” children of Adam and his counterpart, heavenly Eve. I have
presented above that the Test. Truth. does not presuppose the same kind of
mythological narrative, when it comes for example to Eve’s creation. I will also
present below that the motif of Eve’s (and Adam’s) children is dealt with
negatively, because of the rejection of the procreation. The rape theme, at least
dealt alike with the Ap. John, Nat. Rul. and Orig. World is not presented because
these texts use the rape theme as a tool for making a dichotomy between different
human classes. For the Test. Truth there is no need for this kind of dichotomy,
since all humans originate from the passions (sexual lust and procreation) because
they act according to the commandment of Old Testament God.105 When a person

104
Orig. World.: 117:24–28.
105
Test. Truth 30, 1–11.

39
becomes spiritually awakened, she or he will cease from the sexual activity, and so
will also the procreation end.
Of course, linking the story of Eve’s rape to the god of the τld Testament
would fit to the literary plan of the author. Since he wants to present the creator god
as a negative character, why not connect a lustful and sexually violent attribute to
him? It is probable that the author of the Test. Truth. was not aware of this kind of
tradition, even though he knows the serpent exegesis, which can be found (with
minor differences) in Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. If one wants to continue the
comparison to the Valentinian doctrines, with the hypothetical presumption that the
author was against central doctrines of Valentinianism. The Valentinian Gospel of
Philip preserves the tradition about Cain as the father of the serpent (devil). It also
talks about the character of Mary, mother of Christ, naming her as “the one whom
the forces did not defiled”, which comes very close to the defilement of Eve in Ap
John, Nat. Rul. and Orig. World.106
Why would the author then oppose the interpretation where the god of the
Old Testament is presented as a violent rapist and as the father of the wicked Cain?
First of all, it is not sure that the author of Test. Truth. knew this tradition at all.
Connecting the idea presented in Gospel of Philip to the Test. Truth. would need
more thorough study of the Valentinian doctrines and their dating, which cannot be
made in the course of this study. Also the serpent does not probably refer to the
creator god, because his role is actually somewhat positive in some Valentinian
texts.107 Because the Test. Truth considers the procreation as a negative thing and
refers to the generation of Adam as the people who continue procreation, there
probably was also no need to connect the rape scene to the action of the Old
Testament god. The fact that Old Testament law already orders to multiply, means
that humans were under the defiling powers of sexual lust and creator god. There
was no need to derive the sexual lust from the rape of the creator god, as in Ap.
John, even if this kind of tradition would have been known to the author.

3.2.5. Conclusion to the Rape of Eve

In Ap.John, Nat. Rul. and Orig. World the theme of rape is presented. These texts
use the traditions found from rabbinical material where the sexual union between

106
Stroumsa 1984, 46.
107
Thomassen 2006, 63. There were also attitudes which considered Demiurge as a more negative
character.

40
Eve and the serpent, usually interpreted as the Devil or fallen angel of God, is
presented. In my source texts however the sexual union which was based usually
on seduction is transformed into a violent assault of the creator god, where he rapes
Eve. Texts presented in the Codex II all have same kind of idea that the feminine
divine element is taken away from Eve or that this element leaves Eve and escapes
the rape attempt. This interpretation underlines the purity of the divine feminine
being. The creator god, god of the Old Testament is shown in a negative light,
since he and his minions are lustful, violent and ignorant. This stems from the
interpretation of the Bible of the groups that read these texts and may serve
polemical purposes against other groups who appreciated the Old Testament.108
The rape scene also presents the dichotomy between Heavenly and Earthly Eve,
which becomes important in the section dealing with Eve’s children. The rape of
Eve is not presented in Test. Truth. probably because it was not known to the
author. It is also questionable whether the author would have used this material,
because the rape scene sets a stage to the different origins of Eve’s children and as
Í will show later, the Test. Truth considers all procreation of Eve and Adam
negatively, which is not the case with Ap. John and Nat. Rul.

3.3. Eve and the serpent

The serpent, known from the Genesis 3 is present in all texts I am studying. Its
roles vary in the texts, sometimes very radically. This subchapter presents the
different roles of the serpent and its relationship to Eve. I also examine how the
serpent is linked to Eve and how this effects Eve's role in each text.

3.3.1. The Apocryphon of John

I will first deal with the interpretation of the serpent of the Genesis 3 and then I will
deal with Yaldabaoth’s Serpent-like appearance.
Serpent of the Genesis appears in all manuscripts of the Ap. John. In every
text Serpent’s role is considered as a negative one.109 It teaches about the sexual
desire (NHC III, 28, 20–21), sexual desire, pollution and destruction (BG 58, 4–7)

108
Luttikhuizen 2006, 20-24,27-28.
109
Rasimus 2009, 74.

41
or wickedness of the sexual desire and destruction (NHC II 22, 13–14).110 Tradition
is based on Genesis 3 and the idea about Serpent teaching Adam and Eve to eat
from the Tree of Knowledge. Only now the Tree of Knowledge is turned into a tree
which teaches about the negative aspects of life, desire, pollution and destruction.
Manuscripts also differ when studying who is the one the serpent actually teaches.

110
The Greek term σπορά is related to the sowing of the seed, which in Ap. John has a connotation
to the procreation, which is a negative theme in Ap. John.

42
NHC III 28, 18–24
And I said to himμ “δord,
but was it not the serpent
who taught himς” ώe
smiled and saidμ “It was
the serpent, who revealed
to them about sexual
desire which is pollution
of for the destruction. So
that he might be useful to
him. He (Chief Ruler)
knew that he (Adam) did
not listened to him
because he (Adam) was
wiser than he”
BG 58, 1–10
I said to himμ “Christ,
was it not the serpent
who taught herς” ώe
smiled and saidμ “The
serpent taught her about
sexual desire, about
pollution and
destruction”, because
these are useful to him.
And he (Chief Ruler)
knew that she would not
listen to him because she
was wiser than he.
NHC II 22, 10–18
And I said to the Saviour:
“δord, was it not the
serpent who taught Adam
to eatς” And the Saviour
smiled and saidμ “The
serpent taught them to
eat from wickedness of
sexual desire and
destruction, that he
(Adam) might be useful
to him. And he (Chief
Ruler) knew that he did
not listened to him
because of the light of the
epinoia which is in him,
which corrected his
thinking (so that he was
wiser) than the Chief
Ruler.”

The BG version represents the interpretation where the serpent teaches Eve, in
other versions the teaching is attested to Adam. In each case the serpentine offering
does not succeed, because humans have already eaten from the Tree of Knowledge,
which is epinoia(NHC III 28, 7–9, BG 57, 8–11, NHC II 21, 3–5). In all
manuscripts there can be seen a certain kind of corrective exegesis: the Tree of
Knowledge is epinoia, it was not the serpent who taught Adam and Eve to eat
from that tree, but Christ.111 The serpent is not absent from the picture. As in the
Genesis the serpent teaches Eve to eat from the tree (of knowledge) so in the Ap.
John Serpent teaches first humans, but now to eat from the tree, whose fruits are
bad and derive from the Chief Ruler and his minions. This scene is connected to
the part of the Ap. John where the eating from the tree of knowledge actually takes
place. One could say that John rushes things ahead with his questions. Important
things are that through the John’s question, the Ap. John can bring the serpent to
the narrative (and present it in a negative way), enable the mention that it was
actually Christ who taught Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge and in

111
Ap. John NHC III 28, 16–17; BG 57, 20–58, 1;NHC II 21, 9.

43
the case of BG version, connect the teaching about sexual desire to Eve alone,
contra the Nag Hammadi versions.
Question rises, why the Ap. John wants to present the serpent in a negative
light. Because the eating from the tree of knowledge is considered as a positive act,
why does the serpent, which in Genesis 3 leads Eve to this, is now an evil figure
especially when the whole synopsis of the Ap. John underlines the hostility of the
Creator God and his Paradise. Through the Christ’s answer to John, Christ and the
serpent have clearly differentiating roles. If one needs to find an explanation to this
one could think that the Ap.John is written (or redacted) against the group(s) that
saw the serpent as a positive figure, or maybe identified it with Christ or other
Instructor figures, like the one in Nat. Rul. or possibly in Test. Truth. The message
of the text would be “It is not your serpent the Instructor, but our Christ who
actually brought the salvific knowledge to humans”. This is however purely
hypothetical, since the serpent can be understood to mean Yaldabaoth, as I will
show below. Juxtaposing the serpent and Christ, even in the case of the world view
of the Ap.John is peculiar, but does not necessarily need any kind of sociological
conflicts behind it. At least, through the juxtaposition, it becomes clear that the true
bringer of the knowledge is Christ. One option can also be the redactional activity
in the history of the Ap. John. If the core text was originally non-Christian (without
mentions about Christ naturally), redacting the Christian material into the text
caused that Christ was juxtaposed against the serpent. Question which rises, though
it cannot be answered under course of this study, is that was the serpent negative
character in (hypothetical) non-Christian Ap. John? If it was, was the serpent
juxtaposed against epinoia or Sophia who also sometimes seems to serve as
illuminating divine figures?
When it comes to Eve, only BG version presents the idea that Eve was the
one taught by the serpent. It is possible that here the BG version builds upon the
Jewish haggadist materials concerning the relationship between Eve and the
serpent/the devil.112 BG refers to the serpents teaching with the word
tounoueiates (lift her eye to see, open her eyes i.e. to instruct, from the word
tounos to wake, rise, rest) when in NHC II version the word is tseboou (teach).

112
Martínez 2004, 22.

44
The term used in BG version has connection to the Greek ἐγ ω113 which can be
linked to the rising of the passions which again give the BG version sexual
connotations. The BG version also follows the Christian interpretation of Genesis
that the sexual desire is caused by the Fall, because of the serpent’s teaching.114
The BG version emphasises the desire to the character of Eve, not much though. It
seems that the BG version builds on originally those Jewish traditions which
included references to Eve, the serpent and the lust which originated from the
relationship between the two, when the NHC texts links the rise of sexual desire to
the both First Humans. Connecting the Fall to sexuality was a common feature in
Early Christian and Jewish Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha so it is difficult to say,
whether the traditions of the Ap.John derive from Jewish or from Christian
background.115 Be that as it may, it is evident that Eve’s role is emphasised when it
comes to the serpent in the BG version. This is probably because of the literal
reading of Genesis 3. Maybe the case is not that in Bύ version’s need to emphasize
Eve’s role when it comes to the origin of the desire, but somehow make Adam’s
role more positive? When one reads BG version further, one notices that BG
presents the idea that epinoia teaches Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge, in
order that Adam might remember his perfection, contra the version of NHC, where
the teaching of epinoia/Christ and remembering the perfection is attested to both
Adam and Eve.116 Why the BG version would highlight Adam, is difficult to
answer, because first of all it is dubious if this really is the case. The reason for this
may be that the author just follows the text of Genesis precisely, so there would not
be any stressed misogyny in the Berlin Codex.117
The character of the serpent probably refers to Yaldabaoth, whose serpentine
form is mentioned in all versions.118 Also the fact that Yaldabaoth is the one who
sets the sexual intercourse between man and woman links Yaldabaoth to the
serpent. Serpent of the Paradise was also usually connected with the devil in Jewish
and Christian literature, and in Ap.John naming Yaldabaoth as Sammael which was
the name used for the devil in some Jewish texts links the Chief Ruler and the

113
Crum 446b
114
Genesis 3:16, Barc & Funk 2012, 287–288.
115
Adelman 2009, 71.
116
NHC III 30, 19–20, NHC II 23, 30–31.
117
E-mail conversation with Tuomas Rasimus 22.10.2014.
118
NCH III 15, 11 (face of a lion, face of a snake), NHC II10, 9 (lion-faced serpent), BG 37, 20–21
(face of a lion face of a snake).

45
Devil together. Sammael is sometimes connected to the angel of the Lord, who was
casted out from heaven because of his pride. This is a clear connection to the later
tradition of Devil’s expulsion from the heaven. So Ap.John connects the serpent of
the Paradise, Creator God Yaldabaoth and the Devil together.119
The role of the serpent in Ap. John is negative. It teaches to the first humans
about sexual desire, which is one of the traps of the Yaldabaoth in the physical
world. In BG the serpent teaches Eve, in NHC both Adam and Eve. It is difficult to
say if the BG version is just because of the different tradition (example using
Genesis more precisely) or if the difference betrays something about BG attitude
towards Eve. Of course, the question can be inverted. Does the fact that the serpent
teaches both humans, not just Eve, reflect more “positive” attitude towards Eveς It
was not only Eve whom the serpent taught about sexual desire, but also Adam.
Does this underline somehow the reality of the readers of Ap. John? Both men and
women are in the risk to “be taught by the serpent”, in a risk to be under the
negative passions. When reading the narrative forwards, it comes clear that the
teaching of epinoia concerns both Adam and Eve.120
One important notion is that the section actually deals with the serpent and
Christ, or at least setting these two figures against each other. The true and good
teaching comes from the Christ, not from the serpent. Serpent may be associated
with the character of Yaldabaoth. Still, the question rises why the serpent of the
Paradise is a negative figure, when the actual motive of eating from the Tree of
Knowledge still has positive and very important role and in the Genesis the
serpent’s action is central to that themeς I think that setting Christ as an antithesis
of the serpent is deliberate. The hypothesis relating to the possible conflicts
between the readers of the Ap.John and other (Christian) groups who venerated the
serpent of the Paradise would offer an interpretation, but I would hesitate to go in
this direction. There are polemical traits in the Ap.John, especially dealing with the
authority of the Old Testament and the caricature it draws from the Old Testament
God. Connecting the serpent (the figure of the Devil) to the God of the Old
Testament explains the negative image used from the serpent. Of course the
criticism of the serpent venerators is possible, but then it would demand seeing
Ap.John as a text, which actually criticizes many different groups: Those who

119
Rasimus 2009, 118–122.
120
NHC III 30,19–20, NHC II 23,30–31.

46
believe that the God of the Old Testament is good and those who thought that the
serpent of the Paradise was good (which needs the idea that the Old Testament God
was an evil one and disobeying his command is a positive thing). So there would
be at least two “groups” to criticize. This is of course possible and criticism of the
people who believed that the god of the Old Testament was good happens in the
Test. Truth, but in the case of Ap.John this would require very complex
understanding for the use of criticism. Also in NHC II the role of instructor is
changed to Christ, who instructs humans to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, which
is epinoia. This is not stated in NHC III and BG version, where epinoia informs
humans to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. The tendency in the Ap. John in NHC
II is to press female divinity down and rise the status of Christ.121

3.3.2. The Nature of the Rulers

The role of the serpent in positive in the Nat. Rul. After the rape of Earthly Eve,
serpent of the Paradise comes forward.
asei de Nqi +pneumatik[h xM] vaf preftamo auw afta[moou
ef]jw Mmos je ou pe Ntaf[goof nh]tN je ebol xN ¥hn nim
x[M ppara]deisos eknaouwm ebol d[e p¥hn] Nsouwn pecoou
mN petnanouf MpRouwm peje tsxime Nsarkikh je ou monon
pejaf je mNouwm alla MpRjwx erof je xM pxoou
etetnaouwm ebol Nxhtf xNnoumou tetnamou.auw peje vaf
preftamo je xN oumou etetnamou an Ntafje paei gar nhtN
efRvconei mallon enetNbal naouen NtetN¥wpe Nce
Nninoute etetNsooun Mppecoou mN petnanouf auw
treftamo aufitS Ntootf Mvaf auw askw Mmof ouaaf efo
NrmNkax

The female Spiritual principle came in the serpent, the instructor and it
taught them saying: What did he said to you? That from the every tree
in Paradise you may eat, but from the tree of recognising evil and good
do not eat?
The woman of flesh saidμ σot only he saidμ “do not eat”, but “do not
touch it, for the day you eat from it you are dying with death.” And the
serpent, the instructor saidμ “You shall not die, for this was of jealousy
that he said this to you. More, your eyes shall open and you shall come
to be like gods, recognizing evil and good.” And the she (female
Spiritual principle) was taken away from the serpent and she left it
behind as a thing of the earth”

Here the serpent of Paradise is presented as an instrument of the Female Spiritual

Principle. It is not quite clear who the Female Spiritual principle is. The Heavenly
Eve, Woman of Spirit is transformed into a tree, so one would expect that in the

121
King 1988, 167 – 176.

47
case of the serpent, it is not Heavenly Eve this scene is talking about. However, the
epithet Female Spiritual Principle is not attested to anyone in the text. Also the
function of the Female Spiritual Principle comes very close to that of Heavenly
Eve’s. Like Heavenly Eve122 assisted Adam, so the Female Spiritual Principle now
assists Earthly Eve. It is also possible to think that since Heavenly Eve left her
shadowy reflection (Earthly Eve) under the dominance of the Rulers, addressing
her as a Female Spiritual Principle would underline the fact that she really is
spiritual in her essence and her aid to Adam is something completely different to
the physical realm. It must also be remembered that when the author was
interpreting and rewriting the Genesis chapters, the message was more important
than the coherence of the text. In the textual world, trees of life and knowledge can
be combined and the fact that Heavenly Eve transforms into the tree does not erase
the possibility that she still could be understood as a Female Spiritual Principle that
steers the serpent. The serpent’s advice is linked to the eating from the tree of
knowledge. It is not clear if Heavenly Eve is actually the tree of knowledge, since
the scene seems to presume that Heavenly Eve transforms into a completely new
tree – since the tree of knowledge is already mentioned in 88:27–32. One option
would be the tree of Life, which is mentioned in the Genesis, but it is lacking in the
Nat. Rul.
Although the precise identity of the Female Spiritual Principle is not clear it
is possible to say that the feminine divine being takes the serpent as a tool. So, the
serpent is not actually a positive character per se but it works as an instrument. The
idea of a serpent as an instrument of divine being is known both from the Jewish
and Christian sources (Samma’el as a rider of the serpent in PRE, Satan in a form
of the serpent in Life of Adam and Eve, Early Christian material about the serpent
as a tool of the Devil123). Nat. Rul. uses same kind of traditions, but completely
opposite way. The serpent is a tool of (a positive) divine being and it is used to
enlighten humans.
Humans notice that they are naked and clothe themselves in fig leaves.124
Here it is important that nakedness is connected to the lacking of the Spiritual
Element. The Rulers question Adam and Eve about the happening and this leads to

122
The Spiritual Woman, cf. chapter 3.1.2.
123
For Early Christian material, see Koivisto 2012, 64–67.
124
Nat. Rul. 90:

48
the cursing of Eve and cursing of the serpent.125 The idea that the serpent, or the
form of the serpent is cursed because of the Eve’s action comes naturally from the
Genesis. Nat. Rul. stresses that only the reflection of the serpent was cursed by the
Rulers. The serpent (or its reflection) can probably be understood as the creation of
the Rulers themselves because in the text The Rulers play the part of the Old
Testament god. This scene presents that evil powers of the physical realm actually
curse their own creation, like they did with in the case of woman. The Genesis text
does not mention the cursing of a woman, but linking the labour pains and the
ruling of a man over her can of course be understood in this way. The distinction
the Nat. Rul. made with the Heavenly and Earthly Eve seems to continue. Earthly
Eve is cursed, and the text does not elaborate on her character more. She obeys the
serpent, which is actually the Female divine being and with this action the eyes of
the humans are opened. Earthly Eve does the right thing, but she is cursed and she
is going to be the mother of Cain.
The character of Heavenly Eve, which I connect to the Female Spiritual
Principle, again is the real instructor, who brings the knowledge to the humans and
again flees from the clutches of the Rulers. The serpent is here merely a tool of the
Heavenly Eve. Connecting Heavenly Eve to the character of the serpent and its
instructive role can be linked also to the Voice from Incorruptibility which helped
Adam in 88:18–19. As I have presented above, this Voice and the figure of
Heavenly Eve (and the Sophia-Zoe) can be connected to be the same figure. So,
ώeavenly Eve’s primary role is to help, to instruct humans. In Nat. Rul the serpent
is linked to the Heavenly Eve. For some reason the author wanted to use the
character of the serpent and use it in a positive way, as a real instructor, unlike the
author(s) of the Ap. John. The serpent’s role is of course understandable, since its
actions led to the expulsion of the humans from Paradise. When it comes to the
Nat. Rul. the expulsion and the whole idea about disobeying the Rulers is a positive
one, so the serpent’s character was very useful to the text. The author however
wanted to use not the serpent per se but connect it with the real instructive
character of the story, namely the Heavenly Eve. This kind of possessing of a
serpent was probably known to him from the Jewish and Christian literature, where
the serpent was possessed by the Devil. In Nat. Rul. the possessor was not a

125
Nat. Rul. 90:29– 91:3.

49
demonic being, but the good, divine actor. The tradition is familiar, but it is used in
a different way.

3.3.3. On the Origin of the World

The serpent (xof) is not mentioned in the text. The story about the eating from the
tree of knowledge nevertheless occurs. Figure of the beast (chrion) appears and it
is said to be the wisest of all creatures.126This is a reference to the Gen. 3:1 so the
identification to the serpent of the Paradise can be made. The serpent instructs Eve:

xNnoumou etetnam[ou an fsoo]un gar je etetNouwm ebol

Nxhtf petNnous naRnhve auw tetNna¥wpe Nce Nninoute
etetNsooun Ntdiavora et¥oop oyte Mponhros Rrwme mN
Nagacos

With death you shall not die. For he knows that when you eat from it
your intellect (nous, οῦ ) will recover and you will become like gods,
knowing the difference which exists between evil men and good
ones.127

After Eve and Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge, they sobered and
became enamoured of one another. This probably is a positive thing, because
eating from the tree of knowledge is considered as a liberating act, where also the
Zoe-Eve takes part, by passing the knowledge to humans. The phrase become
enamoured is strange. Enamouring of the Pronoia with the image of the human
likeness (108:10) has a negative result, but with Adam and Eve the results are not
told. Enamouring could refer to the marriage and procreation, but this does not fit
to the context of the text. It could be translated as a spiritual love, maybe then
referring to typos of bridal chamber, more like a spiritual union of Eve and Adam.
The destiny of the serpent/instructor is to be cursed by the Rulers
(arywn).128The sect mentions that the eyes of the Rulers became misty (R
xlostN) because of the serpent. It is not stated clearly what this means. However,
Zoe-Eve is not mentioned to be the instructor, nor the idea of the possession is
used. The serpent instructs humans to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, which is
Zoe-Eve, so there is a connection between Heavenly Eve and the serpent, but not
same kind as in Nat. Rul. for example.

126
Orig. World. 118:25–26.
127
Orig. World. 118, 33–119, 4.
128
Orig. World. 120:4–6.

50
 The eating from the tree opens the minds of Adam and Eve and they notice
the true model of the authorities and loathe them. The opening of the minds also
enables the cognitive skills of the humans, like naming the animals and finally the
expulsion from the Paradise by the Powers, who were frightened and troubled
because humans were wiser than them.

3.3.4. The Testimony of Truth

The Test. Truth presents so-called “Serpent εidrash”, a narrative which explains
Biblical text more deeply, revealing its true meaning. It is argued that this Serpent-
Midrash originally existed in a non-Christian surrounding but was later
Christianized and added to the Test. Truth.129 Text actually contains three Serpent
interpretations of the Old Testament passages, alongside with the Genesis, also
from the Exodus 7:8–12 (the Rod of Aron) and Numbers 21:6–9 (Brazen Serpent in
the wilderness). The last is also known from the Gospel of John 3:14. Test. Truth
seems to link Christ at least to the last section with the phrase pai gar pe Y_S “for
this is Christ”.130 In section with Eve and the serpent it is not stated that Serpent is
identified with Christ, but one could ask why the text includes three Serpent
passages, where all interpretations stress the salvific or assisting role of the serpent.
I concentrate to the section where Serpent and Eve are both presented, i.e. to the
Paradise narrative.
fshx xM pnomos etbe p[ai0]…2of de ne ousabe p[e] para
Nzwon throu et xM pparadeisos auw afRpice Neuxa efjw
Mmos je xM 2oou etetnaouwm ebol xM p¥hn etxN tmhte
Mpparadeisos cenaouen Nqi Nbal MpetNxht aeuxa de aspice
ayw asswt Ntesqij ebol asji ebol xM p¥hn asouwm as+
Mpeskexai nMmas. auw Nteunou auMme je neukhk axhou pe
auw auji Nxenqwbe NkNte autaau xIwou Nakhs

όor it is written in δaw about this (ύod’s command to Adam not to eat from
the tree)…131But the serpent was wiser than all animals who were in
Paradise. And he persuaded Eveμ “τn the day you (will) eat from the tree,
which stands in the middle of Paradise the eyes of your mind will open.” And
Eve obeyed and she stretched her hand and took from the tree and ate. She
gave it also to her husband. And at that moment they understood that they
were naked and they took leaves from the fig (tree) and put on girdles.132

129
Pearson 1990, 50.
130
Test. Truth 49,7. Also Pearson identifies this scene to Christ, Pearson 1990, 43–44. Rasimus is
more careful with the identification, see Rasimus 2009, 76.
131
Gen. 2:16–17.
132
Test. Truth 45, 23:31–46, 15.

51
In Test. Truth the Paradise scene with the serpent and eating from the tree goes
unaltered when referring it to the Genesis text. Eve discusses with the serpent and
obeys his advice, causing the “όall”. The “όall” or awakening of the first humans’
minds is interpreted positively. Serpent is clearly a positive figure who instructs
Eve how to flee from the grip of the Old Testament god. Eve’s action is clearly a
positive thing. Through eating from the tree (and obeying the serpent) Adam and
Eve realise that they are naked and clothe themselves. The nakedness which I think
symbolizes sexuality is now covered, meaning the abandoning of the procreation,
passions etc. which were themes related to the Old Testament god and his Law.
Later the text presents Adam and Eve discussing with the creator god,
following the Gen. 3:8–14.133 Here Adam and Eve still seem to be somehow under
the rule of Old Testament god, since they are discussing with him, thrown away
from Paradise (which actually should be a good thing!) and denied having an
eternal life. Even though it is important not to read too much into the text, one
could think the actual situation in second to fourth century “ύnostic” Christian
circles. Even their myth explains what are human’s and creator god’s roles in the
(physical) world and they know the true interpretation of the Scriptures, these
Christians still probably faced challenges: They lived in a world ruled by evil god,
they suffered from passions even though in principle they should defeat these
problems. The Genesis myth can offer an explanation to this real world problem:
Even though Eve and Adam were freed from the evil god in Paradise with the help
of the serpent, they still were forced to converse with him and this malevolent god
prevented them from having an eternal life. Also, as the history shows, Adam and
Eve probably had children, because the human race continued its existence. So they
still were under the Law (begetting children) of the Old Testament god. Life is not
perfect and this kind of interpretation may serve as an example to the
readers/hearers of the text.
Another important thing is that the text presents how the creator god curses
the serpent. It seems that although Eve obeys the serpent, she betrays the serpent’s
action to the creator. If the serpent is interpreted as Christ, it is not probable that the
evil god really could curse the serpent-Christ, but that he probably cursed the
symbol of the serpent. As it is we know, the serpent was a common symbol of the

133
Test. Truth 46, 20–14.

52
devil in the Jewish but also in the Christian imagery.134 So the fact that other
Christians take the serpent of the Garden as a symbol of the Devil is due to the
action of the Old Testament god. The serpent-passages in the Test. Truth seem to
play a game with the correct understanding of the religious symbols. The serpent is
not the Devil but Christ, when the god of the Old Testament is actually a devil-like
being. This evil being still affects in other Christian groups, who treat the Old
Testament and its Law positively and are controlled by it, by the means of passions
and procreation. It is no wonder that these Christians also refer to the serpent of the
Paradise as the Devil and because of this interpret Paradise narrative and whole
Scriptures wrong. Not seeing the god of the Old Testament as evil is the source of
their error.
In Test. Truth Eve obeys the serpent and with his instructions releases herself
and her husband from the power of the Old Testament god. Serpent is clearly a
positive figure, a symbol of Christ. Obeying Christ, eating of the fruit and the
opening of the eyes has consequences which lead to encratic lifestyle of the first
humans. Before the “όall” humans were under the δaw (procreation) and passions.
After this humans in principle were free to passionless life. However, Eve and
Adam are still somehow under the rule of the Old Testament God, which is shown
in the section where the first humans are driven away from Paradise, from the Tree
of Life. This can be interpreted into a real life situation, where the members of the
Christian community (or a monk who read codex IX) deal with the problem of the
passions which they face in their life. The creator god still has a grip over the
humans, through their passions. The script is the same, but the roles are changed.
God of the Paradise is presented as malevolent divinity, who controls humans, and
after their disobedience he proves himself to be ignorant (Test. Truth 47, 19–23)
jealous (Test. Truth 47, 16; 48, 5) and from the point of human salvation, one who
blinds humans rationality (νοῦς 48,9–10).

3.3.5. Conclusions to Eve and the serpent

The serpent of Paradise is presented in every text. In Ap. John. the serpent forms an
antithesis to the figure of Christ. The serpent instructs the humans about sexual lust
when Christ is the real instructor of life. In Nat. Rul. and Orig. World the serpent

134
Pearson 1990, 43.

53
also plays in the instructive role, which is understood positively. In Nat. Rul. the
serpent is in instrumental use by the Female Spiritual Principle, which links this
text to the Jewish-Christian tradition of the Devil using the serpent as an instrument
when seducing Eve, but Nat. Rul. and Orig. World turns the whole scene upside
down. Orig. World refers to the Beast, which is just another name for the serpent.
Texts clearly uses Genesis traditions about the serpent. In both texts the character
of the serpent is cursed by the evil Rulers or Powers but the texts assure that the
curse won’t be over the serpent forever. However, in Nat. Rul. it is the female
divine actor who actually instructs, only in the form of the serpent. Because of the
cursing of the serpent which is presented in Genesis, the author of Nat. Rul could
not have been linked to the female divine character straight to the serpent, but
ώeavenly Eve’s abandoning of the serpent is presented in the text. Serpent’s role
however is positive, it is a tool of the instructor and its salvation is promised to
happen later in history. The connection between the serpent and Heavenly Eve in
Nat. Rul.is clear. Nat. Rul. uses the serpent as an instrument, not identifying the
serpent as a female divine helper, but emphasising the fact that the serpent is a tool
for Heavenle Eve. This underlines the assistant role of the Heavenly Eve an
attribute which is addressed to Eve in the Genesis. Again, positive themes of Eve
are connected to the Heavenly Eve. The cursing of the serpent follows the narrative
of Genesis and with the idea of Heavenly Eve leaving the serpent in Nat. Rul.
secure that Heavenly Eve is not cursed. In Orig. World. the Zoe-Eve is not
connected to the serpent, but the serpents teaching relates to the eating from the
Tree of Knowledge, which is Zoe-Eve. This way the serpent is an instructor, but it
is not Heavenly Eve as in Nat. Rul.
The Test. Truth seems to connect the character(s) of the serpent(s) to Christ.
The serpent in Paradise teaches Eve and causes the awakening and conversion to
encratic lifestyle. In the Test. Truth the awakening leads to the ascetic life, when in
the Ap. John teaching of the serpent leads to sexual desire and procreation. Christ is
the real instructor in the Ap. John, and he is in the NHC II presented as an eagle on
the tree of knowledge, linking the character of epinoia, the symbol of the tree of
knowledge and Christ’s instructive role together, without combining masculine
Christ with the female epinoia. This downplaying of the feminine attributes is a
feature in the Ap. John. version of the NHC II. The texts use the character of the
serpent, but in a different way. In Ap. John the serpent is evil, probably because it
54
is associated with the character of Yaldabaoth. In Test. Truth the serpent exegesis is
used and linked to the serpent of Paradise. In Nat. Rul. Orig. World and Test. Truth
Eve is questioned by the Old Testament god or Yaldabaoth and this leads to the
cursing of the serpent. This seems to state that although Eve obeys the serpent, she
still causes the cursing of the serpent. So it can be said that Eve’s role is not very
positive in the Test. Truth. Same can be seen in Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. Even
though Eve obeys, she is still under the rule of evil creator god somehow. I think
this cursing of the serpent present the idea that (Earthly) Eve is not a totally
positive character, because she still is under the rule of the creator god. In Nat. Rul.
there is no need to apply positive attributes to the Earthly Eve, because it is the
Heavenly Eve who is the instructor and the true giver of life. In Nat. Rul. and Orig.
World the cursing of the serpent also emphasizes the ignorance and hostility of the
evil powers. But, in the Nat. Rul. and Orig. World the cursing of the serpent also
emphasizes the ignorance and hostility of the evil powers. At least in the Nat. Rul.
it is clear that the Rulers curse their own creation. The connection between the
serpent and Heavenly Eve in Nat. Rul.. is clear. Both texts use the serpent as an
instrument, not identifying the serpent as a female divine helper, but emphasising
the fact that the serpent is a tool for Heavenly Eve in Nat. Rul. This underlines the
assistant role of the Heavenly Eve, an attribute which is assigned to Eve in the
Genesis. Again, positive themes of Eve are connected to the Heavenly Eve. The
cursing of the serpent follows the narrative of Genesis and with the idea of
Heavenly Eve leaving the serpent in Nat. Rul. underlines that Heavenly Eve is not
cursed, but the serpent is. Serpent’s salvation under the curse is promised to happen
though.

3.4. Eve’s Children

This chapter presents the traditions about Eve’s children. I will study who the
fathers of Eve’s children are, and what role her descendants have in the narratives.
I also ask why her children are portrayed in a certain way and what the function of
this portrayal is.
In three Genesis interpretations the rape of Eve has its consequences. Eve
bears the children of the creator god or his minions. The Test. Truth lacks the

55
presentation of Eve’s children, but it refers to the “ύeneration of Adam”.135 What
does this term mean and what can be said about the text’s attitude towards the
progeny of the first humans?

3.4.1. The Apocryphon of John

NHC III 31, 10–21
(And) He defiled
her and he begot the first
son, similarly the second
one. Yavai, the face of
the bear, and Eloim, the
face of cat.
BG 62, 8–20 NHC II 24, 15–21
He defiled her and And the chief Ruler
begot the first son and defiled her and begot in
similarly the second one. her two sons; the first
Yave the face of the bear and the second, Eloim
and Eloim, the face of and Yave. Eloim has a
the cat. face of the bear and Yave
has a face of the cat.

The one is The one is The one is

righteous, the other is
unrighteous. E[loim] is
the righteous one, Yavai
is the unrighteous one.
The righteous one he set
over the fire and [spirit,]
and the unrighteous one
over earth and [water.]
righteous, but the other is righteous but the other
unrighteous. Eloim is the one is unrighteous.
righteous one, Yave is {NHC IV 38,4–6: Yave
the unrighteous one. The is righteous but Eloim is
righteous one he set over unrighteous.} Yave he
the fire and spirit, and the set over fire and wind,
unrighteous one over and Eloim he set over
water and earth. water and earth.

These are called These are called And these he called

Abel and Cain [among] Abel and Cain among all with the names Cain and
all generations of men. generations of men. Abel with a view to
deceive

Cain and Abel, know from the Gen. 4:1–2 are pictured as the sons of the
Chief Ruler and they are considered to be the result of the Eve’s rape. Couple of
notions can be made: First, the first two sons are not from Adam, but from the evil
creator god. They are not the result of the Eve’s licentious union with Yaldabaoth,

135
Test. Truth. 67, 10.

56
but the violent activity of the latter. This view differs from some rabbinical
references where Eve is portrayed as committing adultery with the demon
Samma’el, which is the name of the devil that is used in many Jewish sources.136
Samma’el was considered to be one of the angels of the Jewish god, who was cast
away from the heaven because of his pride and unwillingness bow to Adam.137
Some sources also present that Cain was born from the sexual union between Eve
and Samma’el.138 In Ap. John we are dealing with the same kind of motif: The first
children of Eve are not born from Adam, but from the hostile god-like figure. In the
Jewish exegesis the evil origin of Cain explained the fratricide in Gen. 4:8139. The
idea about Cain’s wickedness and its demonic origin is also present in the σew
Testament.140
Other notion comes from the fact that Yaldabaoth seems to rape Eve. This
action becomes interesting, when it is referred to Greco-Roman culture and
jurisprudence. Rape was considered as a serious criminal act that in some cases led
even to death sentence. This was the case when rape was the consequence of
hubris, arrogance, and its intent was to humiliate the victim or his/her kyrios,
lord.141 It is doubtable that the raping scene is presented as a criminal act that
should be interpreted through juristic glasses, because Yaldabaoth’s negative role is
clear already from the beginning of the narrative, so this kind of juridical evidence
about Yaldabaoth’s wickedness is not needed. The fact that in Antiquity, the rape
was considered as a crime leads to a conclusion that the readers of the Ap. John
considered this act both negative and unlawful.142
Eve’s first two children are presented as animal-faced beings. In NHC III and
BG Yavai/Yave (probably deriving from ‫י‬, tetragrammaton of the Jewish God)
and Eloim ( ‫ א י‬plural form from the word “god”).143 Both these names link the
children of Eve to the god of the Hebrew Bible and to Yaldabaoth. Later it is stated
that Yavai and Eloim are called also Abel and Cain and they are set by their father

136
Rasimus 66, note 4.
137
Sammael was also connected to fire, which was his “reason” not to bow Adam, who was made
from earth. In Ap. John fire is also connected to Yaldabaoth cf. NHC III 15, 12, BG 38,1, NHC II 9,
10. This does not mean straight connection of Ap. John to the Jewish origins, but it is possible that
mythology of the fiery Sammael is used with the portrayal of Yaldabaoth.
138
Adelman 2006, 102; Martínez 2004, 24.
139
Klijn 1977, 8.
140
1. John, 3:12. Martínez 2004, 28.
141
See note on Cole 1984, 99 in Skinner 2005, 168.
142
It is also difficult to imagine the scene about Eve’s rape as a positive act.
143
Marjanen, 2004, 154-155.

57
over fire and wind, and over water and earth. From the redaction history of the text
it is interesting that the NHC II and IV present the tradition where Eloim is
portrayed as a bear-faced and Yave as a cat-faced figure. In NHC III and BG they
are portrayed as opposites. NHC IV also states that Yave is the righteous, Eloim
the unrighteous one. In NHC III and BG their depiction is again opposite.
Questions rise about the differences between these traditions. Why the
presentation, both the appearance and the characteristics of the Eve’s two sons
differ? Other interesting questions consider the function of Yave and Eloim. What
does it mean that they both are children of Yaldabaoth and Eve and what do the
places they were set in mean? What role do these kinds of interpretation of Eve’s
first children serve?
Easiest answer to the question concerning the differences in the manuscripts
would be that the textual tradition that codices present is somehow corrupted or
that in the copying process the copyist has made mistake and mixed the
characteristics and appearances of the Yave and Eloim. Which tradition was first,
the one presented in NHC III and BG or the one of NHC II and IV is impossible to
answer.
If one is not happy with this explanation, the investigation should be turned
to the role of Yave and Eloim in the text. Before going investigating their role, I
first concentrate on their presentation as righteous and unrighteous.
Even though Yave and Eloim are descendants of Yaldabaoth, the other is
portrayed as righteous, while the other is unrighteous. From the first sight it seems
that there is something positive at least in the other son of Yaldabaoth.144
Luttikhuizen relates this righteous/unrighteous dichotomy to the Jewish
speculations of the divine names of the God. 145 Luttikhuizen is right that these
names echo the Hebrew words used of God in the Hebrew Bible. This however
does not solve the question, why one of the sons is addressed as righteous and the
other unrighteous? I think the most likely explanation is that when the author of the
Ap. John was dealing with the interpretation of the Genesis material, he needed to
deal with the first two sons of Eve. In Genesis Abel is killed by Cain and Cain
himself is driven to exile. After this the third son Seth, is mentioned. Seth’s role
became important in Jewish and Christian writings, when Cain got the role of a

144
Considering that the righteous has a positive connotation.
145
Luttikhuizen 2006, 89, note 38.

58
murderer and was linked to wickedness.146 In Ap. John the death of Abel is omitted
and he becomes one of the rulers. However, traces about the positive role of Abel
are left in Ap. John in the section where one of the sons is addressed the righteous
one. τf course, this “righteousness” works only on the level of text. In the reality
or in the story world of the text both the righteous one and the unrighteous one are
equally evil, because they have their own place in the physical world’s cosmology.
NHC III 31, 21–32, 6. BG 63, 1–12 NHC II (IV) 24, 24–34
Up to the present Up to the present Now up to the
day. [sexual intercourse] day, sexual intercourse of present day sexual
continued and persisted marriage (continued) due intercourse continued
[due to] the Chief Ruler. the Chief Ruler. In Adam due to the Chief Ruler.
And in Adam he planted he planted sexual desire, And he planted sexual
sexual desire so that so that it is from this desire in her who belongs
through this essence they essence that gave birth to to Adam. And he
gave birth to their copy a copy from their produced through
by means of their counterfeit <spirit>. intercourse the copies of
counterfeit spirit. bodies and he inspired
them with his counterfeit
spirit.
The two rulers he And the two rulers And the two rulers
set over the principalities he set over the he set over {IV 38,23
so that they might rule principalities so that they many}principalities so
over the tomb. might rule over the tomb. that they might rule over
the tomb.

The two children of Eve and Yaldabaoth are set to the group of cosmic
powers and “rule over the tomb”. The term π α ο can also refer to a cave, and
the use of this term may have connection to the well-known Allegory of the Cave
from Plato’s Republic. Technical term π α ο refers in Ap. John to the physical
body which is created by the Yaldabaoth and his minions for Adam in order to lead
him to forgetfulness.147 I will present it here.

146
Klijn 1977, 28.
147
Luttikhuizen 2003, 208.

59
 NHC III 26, 8–27, 1
Then [spirit] and
earth, mixed (with) water
and flame. They were
mixed [with the] four
winds blowing with [fire] blowing with fire, were
and being joined with
each other, they [caused
a] great [disturbance.
They brought him]
into [the shadow of
death. They made] a
form [once more, from]
earth and water and [fire]
and spirit, that is, [from]
the matter of darkness
and (from) [desire] and
their counterfeit [spirit.]
This is our fetter.
This is the tomb
( π α ο ) of the form of form of the body with
the body with which the
robbers clothed the man,
the fetter of
forgetfulness. [And in
this] way, man became
mortal. This is the first
descent and his first
separation.
60
BG 54, 14–55, 15 NHC II 20, 35–21, 14
Then fire and earth They took fire and
mixed with water and earth and water, and
flame. They seized them, mixed them together with
and the four winds, the four fiery winds. And
they mixed them together
joined with each other and caused a great
and [caused a great] disturbance.
disturbance.
They brought him And they brought
into the shadow of death. him into shadow of death
They made a form once in order that they might
more, but from earth and form (him) again from
water and fire and spirit, earth and water and fire
that is from matter and and spirit, the one that
darkness and desire and originates in matter,
the contrary spirit. which is the ignorance of
darkness and desire and
their counterfeit spirit.
This is the fetter. This is the tomb
This is the tomb of the ( π α ο ) of the form of
the body with which the
which they clothed the robbers had clothed the
man as the fetter of man, the fetter of
matter. This is the first forgetfulness. And he
one who came down and became a mortal man.
the first separation. This is the first one who
came down and the first
separation.
 In this scene, all the manuscripts present present also the elements of earth,
water, fire and spirit. In the classical worldview, these four were considered to be
the fundamental elements of the physical world.148
In Ap. John these elements are also connected to the physical world. It must
be remembered that in the cosmology of Ap. John physical world is considered an
evil place. Yave and Eloim are set over these elements. Names differ in the
manuscripts, but the basic idea stays the same: the righteous one is set over fire and
spirit, the unrighteous one over water and earth.149 As I presented above, the term
π α ο seems to refer to a physical body. All the versions of the Ap. John also
present the idea that this physical body relates to the four elements that are linked
to Yave and Eloim. It is also stated that the task of Yave and Eloim is to rule over
the tomb, over the physical body. From this perspective it is clear that the first two
sons of Eve are negative figures, even though other is addressed as “righteous”.
The children of Yaldabaoth are demonic powers who control the physical body of
humans, perhaps referring to the passions of which humans suffer.
The idea about a righteous god of the Old Testament is known from the early
Christian centuries. During the second century a Christian ship owner Marcion
distinguished the creator god of the Old Testament from the god of the New
Testament.150 For Marcion the attribute related to the god of the Old Testament is
righteous, in accordance with his strict laws.151 Linking Cain and Abel to the names
of the Old Testament god’s may echo from marcionite influence. Text itself is not
marcionite although it presents the same kind of tendencies towards ascetism and
sexuality and the whole creation per se, which were known to marcionite
theology.152However, the idea about the divine power inside humans and the
attempt to return this divine material back to the Heavenly Realm was not a part of

148
Wright 1995, 98–99. Wright connects this view to philosopher Empedocles (490 – 430 BC). This
kind of ideas usually come across with developments and changes in culture, so this view probably
changed too, for example in the hands of Plato. However, these four elements as the basis for the
physical world are present in Plato’s Timaios.
149
Luttikhuizen 2006, 89 presents that the elements of water and earth relate to Cain who was
described as an agricultural farmer, and whose offering to God was the fruits of the earth. Fire and
wind relate to Abel, whose offerings were burnt offerings of sheep and their fat. I think these four
elements are also understood as elements of the physical world, according the understanding of
Timaios 53c–55d. In Ap. John Yaldabaoth’s sons stand (also) for the elements of the physical world,
which is a hostile place for humans who are bound to it because of their physical body.
150
BeDuhn 2013, 19.
151
Räisänen 2005, 105.
152
Räisänen 2005, 106.

61
εarcion’s theology.153 Another connection with the idea of the “righteous” god is
presented in Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora. The dichotomy between the righteous god
and the unknown god is present. In Ap. John. the Father of the All, the highest God
is also presented as an unknown one. The Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora does not
present the righteous god in a negative way as the Ap. John. However, these two
examples show that in the first Christian centuries there was already discussion
going on about the dichotomy between the god of the Old Testament and the New
Testament god and that the term righteous was linked to the former one.
Why are they portrayed as negative figures? Because their role is not
elaborated on more, it seems that they are not really crucial characters in the story
world of Ap. John. In the Genesis, Abel is mentioned to be the one whose offerings
God was pleased with. Maybe from the interpretation of the Ap. John this was
considered as downside of Abel. When bearing in mind that basically everything
related to the God of the Hebrew Bible is negative, also the fact that Abel first of
all brought offerings to him and that God was pleased to these offerings can be
considered as a negative thing when interpreting the first chapters of Genesis from
the Ap. John point of view. All in all, there is no reason to explain Abel in a
positive way, because the narrative continues to Seth, who is the first son from the
union between Adam and Eve.

153
Räisänen 2005, 107.

62
NHC III 32, 7–24
He (Adam)
knew his own
lawlessness and he
begot Seth according
to the race on high
among the aeons.
Likewise they sent to
the Mother her own
spirit, to awaken those The Spirit came down
who are like it after
the model of the
perfection to bring
[them] out of
forgetfulness and the
wickedness [of the]
tomb.
BG 63, 12–64, 3 NHC II 24, 35–25, 9
He knew his And when Adam
essence, which was recognized the likeness
like him. Adam begot of his own
Seth. And just as the foreknowledge, he
race which is in begot the likeness of
heaven, in the aeons, the Son of Man. He
thus the Mother sent called him Seth
the one who is hers. according to the birth
in the aeons above.
to her to awaken the Likewise the Mother
essence which is like also sent down her
him, after the model spirit which is in her
of the perfection, in likeness and a copy of
order to awaken them the one who is in the
from forgetfulness perfection, for she will
and the wickedness of prepare a residence for
the tomb. the aeons which will
come down. And he
made them drink water
of forgetfulness154
from the Chief ruler,
so that they might not
know from where they
came.

First notion of the section where Seth is mentioned is that he is referred to as

Adam’s son. εanuscripts also differ from each other in the way they present Adam
and Seth’s relation.
In NHC III it is stated that Adam knew his lawlessness and begot Seth.
Interestingly this implies somewhat negative connotations to the origin of Seth.
However, Seth is begot according to ( α α) the race of aeons. This refers to Seth’s

154
Refence to the Mnemosyne, traditional Greek divinity of the memory.

63
heavenly origin, even though the connection stays a bit unclear. Seth’s role is
important because his origin is connected to the “model of perfection” (tupos
Nte pplhrwma). In this sense he follows the origin of his father Adam, who was
also created (by Yaldabaoth and the rulers), according to the heavenly model in
NHC III 22, 5–6.
I will concentrate first to the peculiar expression of the “Adam’s lawlessness”
in NHC III 32, 7. Because Seth is mentioned in this passage, it seems really strange
that this lawlessness could imply to him. The idea that Seth is begot according to
the race on high (Mpsanxre xra[i] xN naiwn) seems to refer to Seth in a positive
way. Term Mpsanxre appears three times in the codex III version of the Ap John,
always indicating the positive role of the aeons. The easiest way to explain the
anomia is the error of the scribe. Because we do not have the original text of the
Ap. John, we must hypothesize what happened in the course of the copying
process.
The problematic word is anomia. Because the Coptic text is written without
spaces, another word follows it, the particle Mmin. Because the Coptic language
includes many words with m/M and n/N it is easy to make mistakes in the copying
process, while copying for example words that begin with the same letters, or
include the same set of letters, like -Mm--- , -n...m-, or the like. This kind of mistake of
the copyist could explain the word anomia in codex III. However, this proposition
is dubious and also would require a very gross mistake during the copying process.
Only relatively close connection by the appearance of the word anomia is with the
word antimimon in the NCH III, 32, 3. The similarity between the words
antimimon and anomia is not a very close one, but the mixing of the words could
be understandable. It is possible that we are dealing with a manuscript that
preserves this kind of textual mistake.
There has been discussion about the amount of scribes of the codex III.155 If
the assumption of just one scribe is correct, this could mean that the scribal error
stayed in the manuscript after the copyist made it and continued to copy other texts
of the codex. However, Waldstein & Wisse also mention that there is a correction
in the bottom margin of the page 24 made by another hand.156 One wonders, if this

155
Waldstein & Wisse 1995, 2; Emmel 1984, 26. presents that the codex III had only one scribe.
Douglas M. Parrot 1991, 21, 23 present that there has been at least two scribes.
156
Waldstein & Wisse 1995, 116, in the facsimile edition of the NHC III p.28.

64
error was noticed by another scribe or reader, why the (hypothetical) error in page
32 of the codex was left unnoticed, even when it is very surprising concerning
Adam’s relation to Seth.
Other option is that the scribe knew exactly what he wrote. Earlier, in NHC
31, 22–24 it is mentioned that the Chief Ruler planted the desire (epithumia) into
Adam. εaybe in codex III Adam’s “knowing” means acting according to that
desire, which has a link to sexuality and procreation, a subject of which the origin
in human race is from Yaldabaoth. So, Adam is acting according to desire and
begets Seth. Because Seth anyhow has the prototype (heavenly Seth) in the
Fullness (the realm of the True God), in the second light Oroaiel (mentioned in
NHC III 13, 18–19), he is still considered as a positive figure. Reading the NHC III
32, 6–κ this way, Seth’s important role as a progenitor of the immovable race is
still preserved when Adam’s sexual activity is condemned. In this sense, the author
of the codex III (or the author of the Grundschrift if we consider the Ap. John in
NHC III as a copy from other Coptic manuscript) still follows the Genesis narrative
about Seth. Because in the narrative of the Ap. John Seth has an important role, his
birth must be mentioned. Adam’s role is again downplayedν even though he also
had a divine prototype in the Fullness, his role is not important in the Ap. John
after Seth’s birth.
It is difficult to say for sure, which one of these hypotheses is right, or at least
would point to a right direction. On one hand it would be simple to go in the
direction that anomia is a scribal error but then again that raises the questions
about how this kind of error slipped in to the manuscript and even if the manuscript
had another person who corrected it, how this error was still left unnoticed or
untouched?

Excursion: Seth, procreation and sexuality in NHC III

If anomia is to be interpreted as an intentional change in the codex III, the question
rises why this change was made. In the following, I present shortly some passages
that deal with the topics of Seth’s role, procreation, sexuality and human body in
the codex III to survey its attitudes to these themes.
The text that follows Ap. John in codex III is titled Holy Book of the Great
Invisible Spirit or the Gospel of the Egyptians. The latter name is used in earlier
scholarship, for example in the edition with the Coptic text, in the English

65
translation and commentary made by Böhlig, Wisse and Labib in 1975 the text is
referred as Gospel of Egyptians.157 The text presents the origin of the Heavenly
Realm and how it is organized. It does not follow the pattern of Genesis narrative
as closely as the Ap. John but deals with the themes of Sakla’s arrogance, Seth and
his seed’s role and with the heavenly lights to name a few. All these themes are
also presented in the Ap. John. The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit does not
refer to Seth as Adam’s child and nor to the other Adam’s and Eve’s children, but
in the section 57, 18 it mentions that Sakla (which is one of the names of
Yaldabaoth in Ap. John) and demon Nebruel brought forth the spirit of begetting or
conceiving (au¥wpe NMmau Nou_P_N_A Njpo0), which probably refers to the fact
that humans are born into the mundane world and are bound to it by the body and
also includes a reference to labor. Anotther notion that may refer to this kind of
“downplaying” of the body is the mention that Seth came to the world through
virgin. This is of course a reference to Christ’s virginal birth presented in the
Gospels of Luke and Matthew, which later became important Christological
doctrine. In this text, Seth takes the role of Christ as a figure who brings the
revelation to the seed of Seth. The story about the virginal birth of Christ was easy
to adapt to Seth, who replaced Jesus as revelatory figure, or at least in Jesus’
activity the actual agent was the Heavenly Seth. However, if reproduction was seen
as a negative issue, the virginal birth of the revealer, which did not required sexual
intercourse or negative passions like lust or desire probably was not the problem
for the readers of this text.
The next text which follows in the codex is called Eugnostos the Blessed. It
stands in a close relationship to the following text called Sophia of Jesus Christ,
which used Eugnostos as its source text.158In Eugnostos the figure of Seth or any
references to the procreation or sexuality is not mentioned. However, the person of
the Son of Humanity can refer to Seth (as Son of Adam). The text describes the
Unknown God, his attributes and order of the divine world. Divine beings like
Sophia and Adam of Light are mentioned. These figures also appear in other texts
from the Nag Hammadi and related documents. In Wisdom of Jesus Christ the
narrative of Eugnostos is also presented, but the author adds the revelatory

157
The Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2 The Gospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the
Great Invisible Spirit), 1975. The full information can be found from bibliography.
158
Parrott 1991, 16–18; Scopello & Meyer 2007, 285.

66
discourse between the Risen Jesus and his disciples to the narrative. In Wisdom of
Jesus Christ we can find really negative attitudes towards procreation. According
to the risen Christ, knowledge is given to those who have not conceived by the
“unclean sexual rubbing”159 and apostles of Christ can escape the “ferocious fire of
the flesh”160. The text also refers to Sophia and her role in the birth of Yaldabaoth,
even though Sophia’s role is not presented as very active in the course of
Yaldabaoth’s birth. Clear links to the Ap. John can still be seen. Seth is not
mentioned in the text, but if the Son of Humanity in Eugnostos is interpreted as
Seth, it is probable that the character of Christ replaces Seth in this text.
Final text in the NHC III is called the Dialogue of the Saviour. It presents the
sayings of Jesus to his disciples Matthew, Judas and Mary. The text deals with the
origins of the cosmos, themes of archons and it also contains some teaching which
points to the wisdom teaching. The text does not present basic blocks of the
“gnostic” worldview, like seeing the world as an evil place and the myth about the
fallen Sophia.161 Seth is not mentioned in the text. The text however mentions that
“whoever is born of woman, dies”162. Later it also states, first with mouth of the
Saviorμ “Pray in the place where there is no woman”. This is then interpreted
through Matthew meaning the destroying the works of womanhood.163 This may
refer to labour. τr then “woman” represents a symbol for something else, which is
understood negatively. With the earlier reference to death and being born from
woman I think that the codex III presents the attitude where the theme of
procreation and possibly also femininity which was attached to the “giving birth”
was more negative one than in codices BG, NHC II and NHC IV.
In the end, I would go in the direction that anomia is not an error, but states
for a deliberate purposes. The original reading may have been tefousia [eteine]
Mmof or the like, as the other manuscripts present. In codex III we probably have a
version that reacts towards procreation and femininity very negatively. Procreation
is not suitable even for the mythical figures of the Genesis even when the birth of
Seth is considered. At some point during the redaction of Ap. John this kind of
version was created. Whether it happened in the milieu of the Nag Hammadi

159
Soph. Jes. Chr. 93:20.
160
Soph. Jes. Chr. 108: 10-15.
161
Scopello 2007, 299.
162
Dial. Sav. 59.
163
Dial. Sav. 91–92.

67
Codices or earlier is impossible to say. This solution also has its problems, like
how to explain the other version of the Ap. John in codices II and IV? One solution
to this problem is that codices were produced by various scribes, and they were
separate unities. In short, the scribes who produced codices II and IV did not have
access to codex III that included a different emphasis on the Ap. John.164
After dealing with the peculiar tradition presented in the NHC III, I continue
the examination of Seth in Ap. John. In the case of Seth, the focus turns from Eve
to Adam. Seth who is born from the union between Adam and Eve, has a divine
model in the heavenly world and this makes his role important. In NHC II Seth is
born when Adam recognizes his foreknowledge which links Seth’s origin to the
divine world. Adam recognizes something from the divine world and Seth’s role as
the progenitor of the spiritual humans is ensured by making his father
enlightened.165 This enlightenment is brought to him probably by the female divine
being, possible epinoia, because it would not make sense that Earthly Eve, who is
the mother of Cain and Abel, would be the one who awakens Adam. The term
foreknowledge (prognwsis) is connected to Barbelo in NHC II 5:13 and also to
the Father of the All, sometimes called as the Mother-Father is also linked to the
character of epinoia.166 It seems that the character of epinoia can be traced back
to the Father of the All. The term Mother-Father occurs only in NHC II, which
raises questions. If epinoia can be traced back to the Mother (Barbelo) or Mother-
Father (Father of the All), in the case of NHC II does this mean that this version
wants to reduce the feminine aspects of the divinity? Some antifeminine stance is
also taken in the NHC II when it is stated that sexual desire was planted in Eve.167
Changes are not big, but they reveal something aboutthe attitude towards
femininity in NHC II. The codex II stresses Seth’s heavenly origin little bit more,
or at least the cosmological fact that the heavenly model of the earthly exists in the
world of the True God. Seth is in the text considered as the progenitor of the
spiritually awakened humans and through the character of Seth the divine origin of
these humans is ensured.
Adam’s part in Seth’s birth is emphasized, it is Adam who begets Seth (Cain
and Abel were begot by Yaldabaoth). In BG version Adam knows his essence

164
For the discussion about the relationship of the NHC, see Williams 1996, 243, 247–252.
165
Turner 2001, 232.
166
NHC II 28, 11.
167
NHC II 24, 28–29.

68
(tefousia). The term essence can refer to the figure of epinoia presented in the
scene of Eve’s creation. It is also mentioned that Yaldabaoth planted in Adam the
“seed of desire which was from this essence” (Bύ θ3, θ–7). ousia is a technical
term in this text, but the difficulty is to make distinctions between different ousia’s
The reference to Adam’s recognizing of his essence is also made after the creation
of Eve. In BG 63, 13–14 it is stated that Adam knew his essence (tefousia) and
begot Seth. In the case of Eve’s creation in Bύ θί 3–4 the same essence is used.
Does this refer to Earthly Eve or to epinoiaς Since Seth’s role is important in the
Ap. John as the prototype of the humans whose origin is in the Heavenly World, I
think the text actually plays with two kinds of recognition of the essences’. In Bύ
60, Adam knows the Earthly Eve, which is made from Adam by Yaldabaoth since
after this the marital implications are mentioned. The teaching of epinoia comes
after this and so in a way draws Adam back to the course of nonmarital life. The
second recognition of the Adam’s essence is connected to the birth of Seth and in
BG 63, 18–64, 3 it is stated that the Spirit came down to awaken the essence which
is like him, probably referring to Adam. Adam’s spiritual awakening is usually
connected to the work of epinoia. Through Adam’s awakening the origin of Seth
can take place and Seth is born according to the model in the heavenly world. It is
not stated whether Seth is physically born from Earthly Eve or if his actual birth is
related to epinoia. She is involved somehow in Seth’s birth, that is certain. Even
though it would be tempting to think that there exists the dichotomy the between
the children of Yaldabaoth and Earthly Eve and of Adam and Heavenly Eve
(epinoia) like Barc & Funk seem to express168 I think this kind of interpretation
goes too far. The central point is that epinoia acts as the figure that awakens
Adam’s mind and gets him to know his true origin, while with this awakening
Adam and (Earthly) Eve beget Seth, who becomes the typos of the unshakeable
race, because of epinoia’s work. The reference to epinoia is reasonable, because
this scene about Adam’s recognizing of her is an exegesis of ύen. ημ3. Seth’s birth
is also mentioned in Gen. 4:25, but the mention in chapter 5 presents the idea of
Seth as Adam’s likeness and image ( α ὰ ἰ α αὐ οῦ αὶ α ὰ ἰ ό α
αὐ οῦ). The texts do not explicitly say which one, epinoia or Earthly Eve actually

168
Barc & όunk 2ί12, 3ί3 read …”Alors que l’engendrement de Caïn-Yaoue et d’Abel-Élôïm était
le fruit de l’unon de l’Archonte avec sa co-essence ( υ ου α), la femme psychique, Seth naît de
l’unioni de l’ώomme avec Epinoia, son essence (ου α).”

69
gives birth to Seth. The focal point of the origin of Seth is however that his origin
is connected to Adam’s awakening with the help of epinoia. It would also be
strange to think that in the text which condemns procreation the divine figure
would actually give birth to humans. epinoia works as a spiritual Mother, through
Adam.
The original readers of the Ap. John, who considered themselves alien in the
hostile world, traced their origin to the mythical origin of the Seth, who had also a
virtuous role in the Jewish tradition.169 Also this myth promoted the ascetic
lifestyle to its readers and the text could have been used in ascetic surroundings,
even though its readers did not considered themselves “Sethians”170 but
Christians171 this religious text could have been used as a tool for promoting
virtuous and encratic life. Procreation, sexual lust and marriage were something
that belonged to the world of demons (which are symbolized by Yaldabaoth in the
text) and pure, spiritual life belonged to the world of the Father of the All. Being
“seed of Seth” was then a definition that was used by the readers to assign their
ascetic life style. The text may have had functions even when it was read outside
Sethian groups.

3.4.2. The Nature of the Rulers

The text mentions that after the Rulers have expelled Adam and Eve from the
garden, Eve first bears Cain, who becomes a farmer. Cain is followed by Abel, who
is a herdsman. The hint of Cain’s origin is given in the section where the Rulers see
Adam’s female counterpart (atef¥bReine) speaking with him.172
It is possible that the text presents that Cain’s origin is from the demonic
Rulers. Luttikhuizen ponders whether Cain is from Rulers’ seed or from Adam.173
ώe correctly notes that the Coptic text reads that Eve bore “their” son, which can
mean the Rulers or Adam. He also notes that because Cain is a negative figure in
this text, the fact that the Rulers rape Eve and as a result of this rape is Cain, fits
well into the narrative of the text.174 I think that also the scene where the Rulers

169
Klijn 1977, 8, 27–28.
170
About Sethians and the classifications of the Nag Hammadi text see Turner 2001, 57–91.
171
In the monastic context of the 4th century Egypt.
172
Nat. Rul. 89:19.
173
Luttikhuizen 2003, 214.
174
Luttikhuizen 2003, 214.

70
want to “sow their seed” to Eve refers to that Cain was born from this incident. It is
true that raping of Eve and the birth of Cain do not have a clear connection
between them, as in Ap. John for example.
The origin of Abel is not elaborated that much. Abel’s birth is presented
briefly:

Again (palin) he knew (afsouwn) his wife, who became pregnant and gave
birth to Abel (eti asw asjpo Nabel).

Interesting is the word palin. If it is translated as “in turn”, it would mean that
Adam is Abel’s father, Samael and his minions are the fathers of Cain.175 This
would also explain why that the passage where Cain kills Abel is inserted in the
text. It is understandable that the descendant of the evil deity kills the descendant of
a human being. This just undermines the hostility that dwells in the Ruler’s
creation and symbolically underlines the opening phrase of the text.176 Cain and
Abel do not have a cosmological function in this text, unlike in the Ap. John. If
Cain and Abel are considered to be essentially different, like the text supposes, it is
easy to understand why the fratricide theme was inserted in the Genesis
interpretation of the Nat. Rul. This brings up the question about the relationship
between Ap. John and Nat. Rul. The word palin can also be a trace from a Jewish
tradition, where it is stated that Adam knew about Eve’s extramarital affairs with
demons.177 After the fratricide scene Eve begets Seth. The story tells:

<a>adam de [soou(n)] Ntef¥bReine euxa asw asjpe [shc] Nadam

auw pejas je aijpo N[ke]rwme xM pnoute epma [Nnabel]178

And Adam knew his counterpart Eve and she became pregnant and bore Seth
to Adam. And she saidμ “I have given birth to another man from ύod to the
place of Abel.”

ώere Seth’s birth is mentioned briefly. Couple of notions can be made. First,
Adam knows his “female counterpart”, not his wife like in the case of Abel’s birth.
This can be because the author wanted to distinct the origin of Seth from that of

175
Luttikhuizen 2003, 214 n53.
176
Nat. Rul. 86:23–25; Eph. 6:12
177
Martínez 2004, 21 quotes Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. If Nat. Rul. uses this kind of tradition, it
would mean that also Abel derives from the rape of the creator god.
178
Nat. Rul. 91: 30–34.

71
Abel, in the sense that Seth’s origin was somehow connected to knowing of female
counterpart. Also, what does it mean that Seth was born from God?
The Nat. Rul. presents three god-figures. First is the God of the All, pnoute
Mpthrf who is of course a positive figure. Second figure is
Samael/Sakla/Yaldabaoth, who boasts about being the only god, but actually he is
ignorant and evil creator god. Third figure is Sakla’s “Ruler of the Powers” or
Sabaoth, who repents after the revelation given by Pistis Sophia’s daughter Zoe.179
Seth’s relation to ύod refers to the God of the All, whose image the Rulers saw in
the beginning and in whose image they created Adam in the first place. So the
image (eine) of God is now passed through Adam to Seth. Mentions about him dry
up quickly and nothing is said about him in the following section. This is
interesting, because of Seth’s role as Adam’s (and ύod’s) image and because the
traditions that dealt with Seth usually stressed his virtuous character and his
importance as the ancestor of the human race and especially his role as the
progenitor of the virtuous human race.180 The text presents that Seth’s origin is
from Adam and is linked to God, but does not carry this motif further.
After Seth the daughter of Eve, Norea, is born.
palin asw Nqi euxa asjp[e nwrea] auw pejas je afpo na[ei
Nouparce]nos Nbohceia [xN] Ngenea NRrwme taeite tparcenos
ete Mpe (N) dunamis jaxmes

Again Eve became pregnant and she gave birth to Norea and said: He has
begotten for me a virgin for help to many generations of humankind. She is
the virgin that the powers did not defile.

The figure of Norea is interesting, because the Genesis does not mention her
at all. Actually Norea is known only from the heresiological reports of the Early
Christian writers and from some Nag Hammadi texts.181 Also Irenaeus tells about
sect (alii, “others”) in whose belief system Adam and Eve begot Seth and Norea
with the help of providence of Prounikos, and from these two the human race

179
Luttikhuizen 2003, 212–213.
180
For Jewish traditions e.g. Life of Adam and Eve 23 (Klijn counts it as a Jewish writing),
Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 2.3, Seth importance can be seen also in the writings of Nag
Hammadi, like Apocryphon of John, Apocalypse of Adam and in the Gospel of the Egyptians to
name a few. A good survey of Seth in different traditions is A.J.F Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian
and Gnostic literature, Leiden 1977.
181
In The Thought of Norea, NHC IX,2. In Orig. World the book of Oraia, which probably is an
equivalent from Norea is mentioned.

72
descended.182 Epiphanius tells about Horaia who is the wife of Seth.183 σorea’s
origin has been traced to Jewish haggadic materials where she is presented
sometimes as a wife of Noah or a wife-sister of Seth.184 Pearson traces the history
of Norea back to the traditions of Jewish woman σa’aamah, who, depending on a
tradition, was σoah’s pious wife or sister of Tubal-Cain (Gen. 4:22), who because
of her Cainite origin was not pious but evil and according to some Jewish’s legends
seduced the angels.185 This then would be linked into a tradition of the fallen angels
that copulate with women in 1. Enoch, which is based on Gen. 6:2.186 Pearson also
refers to Pseudo-Philo and Chronicles of Jerahmeel that who refer to Seth’s twin
wife σoeba or σoba. This evidence presents the tradition about Seth’s twin sister,
whose name during the translations from Hebrew to Greek and finally into Latin
changed the actual σa’amah to No(e)ba.187 In “ύnostic” circles, the negative image
of σa’amah was then interpreted as a positive image and the fallen angels of 1.
Enoch were transformed as evil the Rulers of the Nat. Rul. and the tradition about
her as Seth’s sister was added to her.
Pearson makes a good case with many references to the Jewish literature in
his etymological approach. His notion that in Nat. Rul. σorea’s name is written
also in the form oraia, referring to Greek Wraia, an equivalent of the Hebrew ‫נע‬
meaning lovely, pleasant. n in the beginning of the orea would then be a Coptic
feminine article. Chance from oraia to orea then again is because pronunciation
of the e and ai is similar.188 However, as Kraemer notes, the problem of dating
these Jewish materials hinder from the drawing of clear connections between
“ύnostic” and ώaggadic material.189 Also, it seems important for Pearson to link
the roots of Gnosticism into Jewish traditions, so this kind of deduction serves his
arguments well.190 Same traditions can be seen in the character of σorea as Seth’s
sister and the comments of Pseudo-Philo and Chronicles of Jerahmeel, with the
possible connection to the name. Still, nothing prevents the possibility that the

182
Ad. Haer. I, 30.9, Pearson 1990, 85.
183
Haer. 39.5.2, Pearson 1990, 85.
184
Pearson 1990, 88–92.
185
Pearson 1990, 90.
186
Pearson 1990, 89–90. For Jewish traditions, see notes 33 and 34.
187
Pearson 1990, 91–92.
188
Pearson 1990, 92.
189
Kraemer 1988, 262.
190
Cf. also Kraemer 1λκκ, 2θ2. Kraemer’s response still links σorea to Judaism, to the story of
Conversion and Marriage of Astheneth which Pearson did not mention,

73
influence could go to another direction, from Nat. Rul. or the tradition which
maybe preceded it to other Jewish traditions, especially if we want to see texts of
σag ώammadi not as “heresiological” text which just alter the traditions but also as
material which creates new ones. I wanted to present this short introduction to
stress the particular feature of Norea in Nat. Rul. Now I will deal with σorea’s role
in Nat. Rul.
Norea is attested as a virgin (parcenos) and help/assistance (bohceia) for
many generations of mankind.191 Her father is not mentioned, but it may be Adam
or then, as for example Pearson and Layton seem to presume, the God of the All.192
Since Seth and σorea’s births are separated from the births of Cain and Abel, it
would make sense that Adam is also the father of Norea. Adam knows his female
counterpart (sooun Ntef¥bReine), which refers to ontological difference
between the mother of the Cain and Abel and Seth and Norea. It is of course
possible that the correct genealogy would be following.

Earthly/Sarcic
Woman/Eve

Cain (probably from the Rape of the Rulers)

Abel (From Adam, knowing his wife afsouwn tefxime)

Heavenly/Spiritual
Eve

Seth (from Adam, knowing his female counterpart f¥bReine)

Norea (maybe from Adam or from God of the All)
An intriguing notion is that σorea takes over Seth’s place. Seth’s birth is
mentioned, but after this he disappears from the narrative. As the table above
presents, σorea’s origin can be linked not to Adam but to the God of the All,
referring to the heavenly world and her total spiritual origin. 193 This actually
separates her from Seth, whose parentage is linked, already in the Genesis and later
traditions concerning him to Adam, although it included Adam’s recognizing of his
female spiritual counterpart. As Gilhus presents, the Nat. Rul. continues the

191
Nat. Rul. 91:35–92:1.
192
Pearson 1λκκ, 2θλ, for δayton’s opinion, see note 2η.
193
Nat. Rul. 92: 25–26.

74
building of a tradition, now adding the character of Norea and linking the
absolutely purest form of origin to her – she has nothing to do with Adam or
Earthly Eve. Her origin is pure and spiritual in every way.194
Why did this kind of interpretation take place? It is clear that Seth’s role as
the progenitor of a spiritual race of humans is transferred to Norea. Does this have
something to do with the gender of Norea? Why did the author want to change
male Seth to female Norea, when we imagine the hearers of the text in the world of
Late Antiquity, where the division between sexes was strongly linked for example
to the society, social conventions, rules and general attitude? One possible solution
is that the fact that Seth’s origin was linked to Adam, the creation of the Rulers,
this scriptural fact needed reworking. The character of Norea, who was known
from the Jewish tradition as a the fourth child of Adam and Eve then was taken into
the picture. The sociological background of the text may stem from a rupture
between the traditions which concerned Seth as a progenitor and a sect that
considered that even Seth’s origin was not spiritual enough, because his father is an
earthly creation of the Rulers. Norea offered a solution to this and because of her
gender also the aspects of the character of the Heavenly Eve can be added to her,
namely virginity and her role as a helper of mankind.
Reference to σorea’s status as a helper for mankind has a connection to Nat.
Rul. 88:18, where the Voice (smh) comes to aid (bohcia) for Adam. As I have
presented above, the Voice is one attribute of the Heavenly Eve.195 The Voice
comes from incorruptibility (t__M_N_Tattako). Incorruptibility is presented as a
divine being who helps humans who are trapped in the physical world.
Incorruptibility is not a part of the physical world, but she has a certain kind of
mediator role in the course of the story. Important notion is that σorea’s birth is
connected to Heavenly Eve. Norea is for first time presented as an active person
when the text moves to the scene where the Rulers decide to destroy all life from
earth by a flood.196 The Ruler of the Powers (Sabaoth) orders Noah to build an ark.
The text here follows the story of Genesis 6. Norea (in the manuscript spelled now
as wrea) wants to board the ark, which Noah denies from her. Because of this,
Norea blows upon the ark and burns it. After this Norea confronts the Rulers. In

194
Gilhus 1981, 168. Gilhus also discusses about the dating of the text, mainly linking it later than
“Sethian” traditions which discussed about the heavenly origin of Seth.
195
See chapter 3.1.2.
196
Nat. Rul. 92:4–8.

75
this confrontation the Rulers try to oppress Norea to serve them. First the Rulers lie
to Norea that her mother Eve came to them. She ignores this and instead addresses
them as rulers of darkness. She also informs them that they did not know σorea’s
mother, but their own female counterpart. Norea also presents her knowledge of
her own divine origin.197 This scene presents the Rulers as liars (Eve did not come
to the Rulers) and ignorant or as liars (The Eve they confronted was not the mother
of Norea). Norea again is presented as the one who knows the true essence, of both
the Rulers and herself. After this the Rulers try to enforce Norea to be their slave
(xaps pe etreR bwk nan) but Norea cries out for help, and after this the great
angel Eleleth comes to Norea and the Rulers back away from her Eleleth teaches
σorea about her “root”, probably referring to her divine origin.198
Norea’s birth is connected to Heavenly Eve, which becomes clear with the
term f¥bReine used for Adam’s recognition.199 Eve addresses Norea as virgin
(parcenos) and help or assistance (bohceia) for many generations of mankind.200
The virginity of Norea on the other hand links her to the heavenly realm and on the
other hand assistance connects her to the character of Eve in Gen 2:18 in LXX.
Because in Nat. Rul. assistance is par excellence spiritual helping, like what
Heavenly Eve does to Adam Norea continues the function of the Heavenly Eve.
Even though Norea opposes the Rulers it seems that she cannot oppose them totally
without the help of divine powers. One could argue that Nat. Rul. does not want to
present too strong a female figure. I think that this is not the case. The author could
have used the character of Seth if had he wanted to promote a mythological male
character and not a female one. Still, Seth is left without much attention. It is true
that Norea is not completely free from the powers of the Rulers, but the fact that
she is enforced to cry for help opens a new phase in the text. With Eleleth arriving,
the teaching about σorea’s root, which concerns also the reader of the text can
begin. In this sense, Norea really acts as an assistant to the humans, since they learn
through σorea’s question about the reality and the true nature of the Rulers.
Eve’s children serve as a tool for presenting the evil nature of the Rulers –
Cain is the consequence of the Yaldabaoth’s rape, Abel is killed because
Yaldabaoth’s offspring continues his father’s violent actions and Seth and Norea

197
Nat. Rul. 92:19–28.
198
Nat. Rul. 92:30–93:13.
199
Gilhus 1981, 154.
200
Nat. Rul. 91:35–92:1.

76
are presented totally from different origin than Cain and Abel, with the theme of
Adam knowing the female counterpart. Seth however is left under the shadow of
Norea, who is the heroine in this text. The disappearance of Seth is intriguing and
may derive from the strict need to present the spiritual origin of the readers of the
text. The character of Norea served this purpose well. She is also linked to the
character of the Heavenly Eve through the Septuagint word play, which
emphasizes Norea’s role as a helper of the mankind.

3.4.3. On the Origin of the World

The only child who is mentioned in this text by name is Abel. This is striking,
because two other Genesis interpretations follow the Biblical pattern, discussing
first the birth Cain. Cain and Seth however are absent from the Orig. World. It is
stated that Abel was the child of Yaldabaoth (First Ruler).201 Only a somewhat
close connection can be found from Ap. John from NHC III 31, 20, where Abel is
mentioned before Cain (Cain is mentioned, though). The Orig. World states that
other authorities of Yaldabaoth were fathers of Eve’s other children who are not
mentioned. It is notable that the text does not refer to that Eve’s children would
have had Adam as their father. This may imply the anthropology of the text:
Humans origin, at least their bodily form, comes from Yaldabaoth and his
followers. This is stated in 117, 27. The body of the humans comes from the
Powers, who then carry the light of the heavenly world.
Despite the strange fact that only Abel is mentioned the Orig. World presents
the same kind of threefold division of human classes as the division of Cain, Abel
and Seth presents in Ap. John or Cain, Abel and Seth and Norea present in Nat.
Rul. In Orig. World the division is made to Spiritual, Psychical and to Earthly
one.202 The origin of these races is linked to Adam, and Eve’s role as their mother
is not elaborated on more. It is stated that these human classes are Adam’s
generation.203 So, there is the same kind of classification of different human classes
like in the Ap. John and in the Nat. Rul. In Orig. World. these classes are not
however linked to the children of Eve, but to Adam. Clarity to the question about
anthropology comes later, when the texts state that these modelled forms, children
of Adam, compose a church where all these races exist. This can be a hint about the

201
Orig. World. 117:15.
202
Orig. World. 122: 6–9.
203
Orig. World. 122: 6–9.

77
social setting of the text. It is clearly a Christian text, and deals with the mixture of
a religious community. In the church or congregation (ekklhsia) there are humans
belonging to different races, but the congregation is a mixture of these humans. The
three-partite division between humans is also attested in Valentinian theology.204
The text also states that three races belong to the kings of the eight heavens,
referring probably to Sabaoth. The fourth race, which is the creation of the Saviour
are said to be the perfect and kingless beings.205
The children of Eve do not play any crucial role in the text. Only Abel is
mentioned and his origin is connected to Yaldabaoth. The text implies that also
other children of Eve were born from the rape of Eve. It is stated that the human
body derives from this incident and links the three classes of humans to Yaldabaoth
and his minions, even though the text makes a division between four classes of
humans. The fourth class has a completely heavenly origin, from the Saviour. In a
sense this plays the same kind of role the as Norea plays in Nat. Rul. as a
progenitor of a purely spiritual race. σow σorea’s place has been taken by the
Savior, probably referring to the character of Christ. In the Orig. World Adam’s
progeny is a part of the congregation, but not spiritually in highest places. Eve is
not mentioned after the raping scene when in relation to her children.

3.4.4. The Testimony of Truth

In Test. Truth there are no references to Eve’s progeny. Biblical figures of Cain,
Abel and Seth are not mentioned at all and they do not seem to play any role in the
text. As mentioned above, the tractate presents very encratic teaching. The Rulers
of the world control humans through passions and desires which are caused par
excellance through sexual activity.206 Considering this, it would be reasonable to
conclude that the attitude towards Eve’s children is negative. Begetting children is
considered as obedience to the Old Testament God and to his Law, which
commands humans to bear children and multiply – and this probably drives
humans under the influence of passions. The text also sets against each other the
two types of people: those who are from the generation of the Son of Man
(tg[enea Mp]¥hre Mprwm[e]) and those who are from the seed of Adam

204
Thomassen 2006, 47.
205
Orig. World. 125:3–6.
206
Test. Truth. 30,2–11, 73,25–30 (About the Law of the Sabaoth, the Ruler of the World)

78
([pe]sperm[a Nadam]).207 Where the generation of the Son of Man controls their
desires, the seed of Adam are still under their rule. As seen above, desires are
linked to the procreation and to the fulfilment of the Old Testament Laws.
Some Early Christian theologians presented the idea that the sexual
intercourse without passions existed in Paradise before the “Fall”.208 Clemens of
Alexandria also presents that sexual intercourse should be used for the sake of
procreation, not for sexual pleasure. These ideas show that sexuality was at least by
some Christian authors considered positive feature in the human being when it was
practised right, meaning that the mind ( οῦ ) controlled the lower parts of the
human soul, namely ̄ and ἐπ ̄ α. In the case of Test. Truth procreation is
nevertheless linked to the effects of passions and to the fulfilment on the Old
Testament commands. As we shall see below, the “όall” is not considered as a
negative event, but as an emancipation from the authority of the Old Testament
God. Where in Clemens and Augustine sex was innocent and passionless in
Paradise and after the Fall it became something which must be controlled and in
the case of Augustine also was an instrument which passed the Original Sin to
infants, in Test. Truth the first humans are liberated from the Old Testament Laws
(procreation) and by that from the ruling of the passions and the God of the Old
Testament. After the “όall” humans are free to live life free from passions, which
includes first of all celibacy.
Reason for this kind of exegesis is in author’s encratic world view. ώis
theology is not solely linked with celibacy, but other “bodily” affairs are also
criticized by him: The carnal resurrection is condemned and so is baptism, both of
which were very important themes in the Christian theology already from the 1st
century onwards. It is interesting to note that Jesus’ virginal birth however is not
condemned. Was the idea that there was nothing sexual related to Jesus’s origin so
important to the author that it suited the theology of the author? Even though the
author seems to draw lines between his own congregation and the other Christian
movements with theological arguments. He also uses themes of virginity, celibacy
and freedom from emotions to stress the differences between his own congregation
and other Christian groups. Against these ideas, especially the stressing of
encratism and virginity, it is difficult to see that Eve having children would be

207
Test. Truth. 67,3–12.
208
Joku Clemens?? City of God book 14, ch. 26.

79
considered a positive act in the world view of the author of the Test. Truth. Quite
the opposite, bearing children is considered as a negative act which just strengthens
the grip of the Old Testament god over the humans.

3.4.5. Conclusions to the Eve’s Children

In Ap. John, Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. Eve’s children play various roles. Common
to the characters of Cain and Abel is that they derive from the Yaldabaoth’s or evil
powers raping of Eve. On the other hand this stresses the violent character of the
Old Testament god and on the other hand they create a division between different
classes of humans, especially in Orig. World. Texts present different traditions, Ap.
John presents that both Cain and Abel derive from Yaldabaoth, Nat. Rul. leaves the
question concerning origin of Abel somewhat open, Orig. World links mentions
Abel as a firs son of Eve and states that the angels (of the Yaldabaoth) produced
more children from her. This causes the mixing of the light material to the physical
world. However, in Orig. World all this happens through the will of the Pronoia.
Seth’s birth is related to Adam in Ap. John and in Nat. Rul.In Ap. John Seth
plays important role as progenitor of the spiritual human race. His origin is
connected to Adam’s knowing his counterpart, probably referring to spiritual
awakening done by epinoia. In Nat. Rul. Seth does not play important role, but he
is replaced by Norea, whose origin is again attested to Eve. It is not clear if this Eve
is Heavenly or Earthly one, but to Norea there is linked many attributes of the
Genesis Eve. Her virginity is maintained and she is addressed as a helper of the
human race. Her role as an opposing power to the Rulers serves as symbol for
humans, who confront hostile demonic powers in their lives.
In Test. Truth there is no mention about the children of Eve. The texts
attitude towards procreation and reference to the generation of Adam however
suggests that author’s attitude towards Eve’s children was negative, because having
children means fulfilling the commandments of the Old Testament god. Eve is not
mentioned, but I think that her role as a giver of life was considered negatively in
this text.
In other texts the positive role of Eve’s children (in case of Seth and Norea)
is linked to the figure of epinoia /Heavenly Eve when the Earthly Eve bears the
children of the Rulers and through this she is linked to the negative aspect of

80
reproduction. Having children is not always negative, but children are understood
more spiritual senseμ they origin from Adam’s recognising his divine counterpart,
which can be understood as a spiritual knowing, contra Earthly Eve begetting
children to the Rulers

81
4. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine the character of Eve in four Nag
Hammadi and related documents, Ap. John, Nat. Rul. Orig. World and Test. Truth.
The research questions posed in the beginning were: What traditions these texts use
when presenting the character of Eve and how they use the traditions and what
purposes presentation of Eve in a certain way serve?
Texts I categorize as Genesis interpretations (Ap. John, Nat. Rul. Orig.
World.) use traditions known from rabbinical material, which deal with the idea of
sexual union between the serpent or Devil and Eve. In the Nag Hammadi
documents the character of Devil is now presented as an evil and violent creator
god, addressed as Yaldabaoth, Sammael or Sakla. The name Sammael links the
creator god to the Devil of the Jewish literature. Sex between Eve and the serpent/
the Devil is now presented as a violent rape made by the creator god. Texts also
derive different classifications of the humans from this event. There are differences
in traditions, but they all use material known from the rabbinical sources about the
sexual union between Eve and the Devil and Cain’s demonic origin. When it comes
to Seth and Norea, birth is connected to the knowing divine counterpart. Nat. Rul.
and Orig. World. also use the tradition known from Greek mythology, where the
female deity escapes the rape attempt of another deity by transforming into a tree.
The theme concerning the Rulers’ raping activity derives from the use of Genesis 6
and its reception in Enoch-material.
When it comes to the serpent, Ap. John. links the serpent to Yaldabaoth, who
also has devil-like features. The features of the Devil, the serpent and the evil
creator god are all combined in the character of Yaldabaoth. In Nat. Rul. and Orig.
World. the serpent is a positive figure, who works as a tool of female divinity
(Heavenly Eve) in order to pass the knowledge to the Adam and Eve or then just
instructs humans to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, which is connected to
Heavenly Eve. This tradition resembles the one known from some Early Jewish
and Christian traditions about the serpent as an instrument of the Devil or a fallen
angel to lure the first humans to the disobedience to the commandments of God. In
Nat. Rul. this tradition is turned vice versa, because the theology of the text, where
the God of the Old Testament and everything connected to him are shown in a
negative light. I believe this is a new insight of the tradition behind the text. The

82
Test. Truth presents the interpretation where the serpent is identified with Christ.
The idea that Christ somehow possessed the serpent is not discussed, and the text
use also other Old Testament passages dealing with the serpent which the author
takes to resemble the character of Christ. These serpent exegeses are known from
the Gospel of John, with the exception of the identifying Christ with the serpent of
the Paradise.
The use of traditions and the portraying of Eve in a certain way promotes the
negative attitude towards the god of the Old Testament and the ascetic/encratic
tendencies of the texts. This is not a new observation, but I have shown how this
observation is strengthened by my analysis, which concentrates to the character of
Eve. One cannot distinguish between these two aspects of the texts, but they are
connected to each other. Both require radical reworking of the earlier traditions.
Through the thematic examination of Eve there can be found different
viewpoints to Eve:
Eve’s Origin
In Genesis interpretations the origin of Heavenly Eve is in the spiritual world.
Earthly Eve derives from the violent assault of the Old Testament god, which
serves two purposes. First, it underlines the hostility and imperfection of the creator
god. Second, the narrative ensures the fact that the virginity and purity of the
Heavenly Eve is maintained. In Test. Truth Eve’s origin is not dealt. The
dichotomy between the Heavenly and Earthly Eve is not present in the text, so I
believe there was not same kind of creation narrative as in Genesis interpretations.

Eve’s Rape
This continues the theme of Eve’s origin. The creator god tries to rape Heavenly
Eve, but Earthly Eve is raped instead. This event links the origin of the Cain (and
Abel) to the god of the Old Testament and promotes an origin for the wicked
human race. In Ap. John. also the origin sexual lust which controls humans is
connected to this event. The hostility and lustful nature of the creator god is
stressed. The escape of the Heavenly Eve links her to the tree of knowledge,
emphasizing her positive role. Rape is not mentioned in Test. Truth. and this
tradition was not probably known to the author.

Eve’s Children
83
In the Genesis interpretations the division between different classes of the human
race is derived from the Eve’s rape. The spiritual humans, represented by Seth and
Norea derive from Adam’s or ώeavenly Eve’s knowing of their divine counterpart.
Earthly Eve is not mentioned in the case of spiritual humans, she is only related to
the children deriving from the of creator god. In Test. Truth Eve’s progeny plays a
negative role, even though the descendants are not explicitly specified. Because
Eve’s children derive from procreation which is a negative thing in the text the
theme of Eve’s children would have been a negative one for author.

Eve and the serpent

The serpent plays a positive role in Nat. Rul. and Orig. World. Because it was
cursed by the creator god, the Heavenly Eve is not the serpent per se, but she uses
the serpent as a tool in Nat. Rul. In Ap. John. the serpent has a negative role, it
teaches about sexual desire to the humans and is actually connected to Yaldabaoth.
The serpent and Christ are two opposite characters in Ap. John., because it is Christ
who gives the real teaching for the eating from the Tree of Knowledge to humans.
There are however some variation in the manuscripts when it comes to the question
who the serpent teaches (Eve or both Adam and Eve) and does the true teaching
derive from female epinoia (Heavenly Eve) or from Christ. In Test. Truth. the
serpent is identified with Christ. The instruction Christ gives is the ascetic lifestyle
which leads to the freedom from controlling passions and thus the freedom under
the law and rule of creator god.
Presenting Eve in certain way serves the ascetic purposes of the texts. The
character of Heavenly Eve stands for virginity, being a mother of the living, i.e.
awakening the spiritual humans. She is not linked to the procreation, as is the
Earthly Eve who is a result of the violent and lustful action of the Old Testament
god who stands for sexual passions. Ascetic lifestyle, or problems one can phase
when living ascetic life are dealt with the character of Earthly Eve. Through the
Earthly Eve these texts answer to the questions where the sexual lust originated and
stand for the fact that human body is under the rule of the evil creator god, which is
identified as the god of the Old Testament. Because humans have to live in a body,
they also face problems concerning passions, sexual lust etc. which is then
explained by the anthropology of the texts. This can be linked to the social reality
of the readers. Even though the readers would have considered themselves as
84
spiritually awakened Christians, they still have to live in a body which is somehow
under the powers of the creator god. In the real world, even the spiritual Christians
face problems with passions and the fact that they live in a body ruled by the evil
creator god. This fact is stated also with the stories of the texts. Even though Adam
and Eve are enlightened by the Heavenly Eve or Christ, they still face the wrath of
the creator god, they are questioned, cursed and driven out of Paradise by him.
Spiritual Christian read this scene resembling her or his own life: Even though one
is spiritually awakened, one is still somehow under the grip of the creator god. The
character of Norea and her struggling with the Rulers underlines the fact that
humans face problems caused by the creator god, but also that they can be resisted
with the help of divine beings. The readers of these texts considered the physical
world as the creation of the malevolent and imperfect deity, which they identified
with the god of the Old Testament. Way to escape from the power of this god was
the ascetic lifestyle, renunciation of everything which connected humans to the
physical world.
Texts from the Nag Hammadi contain different kind of Eve characters. First
one notices the division between the Heavenly Eve and the Earthly Eve. The
religious language and symbols of the Genesis are used, but in Nag Hammadi texts
they are interpreted in a symbolical way. Heavenly Eve does not give birth to
“earthly” humans, but to the spiritual ones, by awakening them. Use of the name
zwh, life underlines the true life Heavenly Eve gives. The tree of knowledge is
which releases humans from the powers of the creator god is connected to
Heavenly Eve as is sometimes the serpent, the symbol of the instructor.
Earthly Eve stands for the demonstration of the evil and malevolent god of
the Old Testament, serving both as a model of critique of Old Testament god and
as a symbol presenting the oppression that the Christian reader phases in the
physical world. In the Test. Truth. there is no character of Heavenly Eve. Eve in
this text is portrayed more negatively than in Genesis interpretations. She listens
the instructions of Christ, but is still under the rule of the creator god and continues
the procreation, which is a sign for her being still under the rule of the Old
Testament Law.
This study shows that the images of the Eve in the Nag Hammadi texts vary.
Even in the Genesis interpretations there are different tendencies between the
themes dealing with Eve. Most negative image of Eve is in Test. Truth. This
85
observation leads to the suggestion that the Nag Hammadi texts should be studied
separately, giving each text its own voice. The division between characters of
Heavenly Eve and Earthly Eve is only one suggestion for the hermeneutical tool
when studying the texts from the Nag Hammadi.

86
5. Relevance of Research
Linking the research dealing with the themes of Late Antiquity to modern
discussion is not easy, at least if the author wants to do this in a sincere way and
not only invent different roundabouts around her or his topic.
Central relevance of this study to modern discussion is that it deals with
different attitudes towards femininity, gender and sexuality and with the history of
the interpretation of the Genesis. Especially when it comes especially to the idea
about womanhood, the Western tradition still carries the weight of the negative
interpretation of the incidents in Paradise. The texts from the Nag Hammadi and
the Berlin Codex propose a negative attitude to procreation and sexuality.
However, they interpret Genesis in a different way than their contemporaries did. I
think this shows that religious traditions are always interpreted and to this
interpretation affects the surrounding culture, episodes that take place in the
surrounding world and especially individual humans, who have the power to make
interpretations. Genesis interpretations of the Nag Hammadi texts are not better or
worse than the ones presented in other Early Jewish or Early Christian texts. They
are just different. When understanding that the need for interpreting one’s religious
tradition is an inevitable, dynamic part of religions, especially those that deal with
the sacred texts, one can understand both the discussions which are going on in her
or his society and in religious surroundings. It is also possible to understand
religious traditions which are not so familiar to self if one understands that this
interpretative process takes its place also outside own religious tradition. Whether
one considers oneself as a religious person or not does not matter, since I dare to
say that religions are not disappearing from the world. It is important to understand
especially the dynamic process of interpretation which is an integral part of the
religions.

87
6. Bibliography

Dictionaries and Aids

Barc, Bernard et Funk, Wolf-Peter, Le livre des secrets de Jean. Recension br̀ve
(NH III, 1 et BG, 2). Bibliothéque Copte de Nag Hammadi. Section “textes” vol.
3η. Qúebecμ δes Presses de l’universite δaval. 2ί12.

Bullard, Roger Aubrey, The Hypostasis of the Archons. The Coptic text with
Translation and Commentary. Patristische TExte und Studien. Band 10. Berlin :
Walter de Gruyter. 1970.

Charlesworth, James H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha vol. 1–2. The Anchor
Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, London : Yale University Press. 2009.

Craig A. Evans, Robert L. Webb and Richard A. Wiebe (eds.), Nag Hammadi
Texts and the Bible. A Synopsis and Index. New Testament Tools and Studies.
Leiden : Brill. 1993.

Crum, Walter E. A Coptic Dictionary. First Published 1939, repr. 1962. London:
Clarendon Press. 1962

The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments. New Revised Standard
Version. New York, Oxford : Oxford University Press

Layton, Bentley, A Coptic Grammar. With Chrestomathy and Glossary. Sahidic

Dialect. Porta Linguarum Orientalium Neue Serie Herausgegeben von Werner
Diem und Franz Rosenthal. Band 20. Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesband.2000

The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon

http://www.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context=lsj

Painchaud, δouis, δ’écrit Sans Titre. Traité sur δ’origine du εonde (σώ II, η et
XIII, 2 et Britl Lib. Or. 4926[1]). Par Avec deux contributions de Wolf-Peter Funk.
Bibliothéque Copte de Nag Hammadi. Section “Textes”vol. 21. Québecμ δes
Presses de l’Université δaval. 1995.

Nag Hammadi Codices, Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Cartonnage of the
Covers. Ed. J. W. B. Barns, G. M. Browne and J. C. Shelton. Nag Hammadi
Studies. vol 16. Leiden : Brill- 1981

Primary Sources
The Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC)

Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. Contributors Birger A. Pearson – Søren

Giversen. Volume editor Birger A. Pearson. Nag Hammadi Studies 15 Leiden:
Brill.

88
 Nag Hammadi Codex II Together with XIII, 2*, BRIT.LIB. OR.4926 (1), and
P.OXY. 1, 654,655. With contributions by many scholars, vols. 1–2. Volume editor
Bentley Layton. Nag Hammadi Studies 20–21. Leiden: Brill.1989

The Apocryphon of John. Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II, 1: III,1; and
IV, 1 with BG 8502,2. Edited by Michael Waldstein and Frederik Wisse. Nag
Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 33. Leiden: Brill. 1995

Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2 The Gospel of the Egyptians. Edited
with translation and commentary by Alexander Böhlig and Frederik Wisse in co-
operation with Pahor Labib. Nag Hammadi Studies 4. Leiden : Brill 1975

Nag Hammadi Codices III, 3-4 and V, 1with papyrus Berolinensis 8502,3
and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1081. Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesuss Christ. Ed.
Douglas M. Parrott. Nag Hammadi Studies 27. Leiden Brill 1991.

Nag Hammadi Codices III, 5. The Dialogue of the Savior. Contributors

Stephen Emmel, Helmut Koester, Elaine Pagels. Volume editor Stephen Emmel.
Nag Hammadi Studies 26. Leiden : Brill 1984

The Greek New Testament

Novum Testamentum Graece. Begrûndet von Eberhard und Erwin

Nestle.Herausgeben von Barbara und Kurt Aland. Johannes Karavidopoulos,
Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger. 28. revidierte Auflage Stuttgart :
Deutsche Bibelgesellshcaft. 2012

The Apostolic Fathers

The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edition. Edited
and translated by Michael W. Holmes. after the earlier work of J. B. Lightfoot and
J. R. Harmer. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Baker Academic. 2007.

Tertullian
De Cultu feminarum <http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian/tertullian.
cultu1.shtml> Cited 28.10.2014

Secondary Literature
Adelman, Rachel
2009 The Return of the Repressed: Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and the
Pseudepigrapha. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
140. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Baskin, Judith
2002 Midrashic Women. Formations of the Feminine in Rabbinic Literature
. Brandeis series on Jewish women. Hannover, NH: University Press of
New England.

BeDuhn, Jason David

2013 The όirst σew Testament. εarcion’s Scriptural Canon.

89
 Salem, Oregon: Polebridge Press

Bronner, Leila L.
1994 From Eve to Esther. Rabbinic Reconstructions of Biblical Women.
Louisville;Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

Denzey, Lewis, Nicola

2013 Introduction to “ύnosticism”. Ancient Voices, Christian Worlds. New
York: Oxford University Press.

D’angelo, εary Rose

1988 “A Response to Pursuing the Spiritual Eve” in Karen L. King (ed.)
Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. First Trinity Press International
edition 2000, Trinity Press International: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. pp.
207–210.

Florentino, García Martinez

2004 “Samma’el in Pseudo-Jonathan and the Origin of Evil” in Journal of
Northwest Semitic Languages vol. 30, No 2. pp. 19–41

Gilhus, Ingvild Saelid

1982 The Nature of the Archons. A study of the Soteriology of a Gnostic
Treatise from Nag Hammadi (CG II,4) University of Bergen : Ingvild
Saelid Gilhus

Heger, Paul
2014 Women in the Bible, Qumran and Early Rabbinic Literature. Their
Status and Roles. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 110.
Leiden; Boston: Brill.

King, Karen L.
1988 “Sophia and Christ in the Apocryphon of John” in Karen δ. King (ed.)
Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. First Trinity Press International
edition 2000 (repr.), Trinity Press International: Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. pp. 158–176.
2006 The Secret Revelation of John.
Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press

Klijn, A.F.J.
1977 Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature. Supplements to
Novum Testamentum. 46. Leiden : Brill.

Koivisto, Jussi
2012 Is Evil Inevitable for Creation and ώuman Studies on εartin δuther’s
Biblical Interpretation. Diss. Helsinki : Unigrafia.

Kraemer, Ross S.
1988 “A Response to Virginity and Subversion”. in Karen L. King (ed)
Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. First Trinity Press International

90
 edition 2000,(repr.) Trinity Press International: Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. pp. 259–264
2009 “Women and ύender” in. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G.
Hunter (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies Oxford
handbooks in religion and theology. Oxford University Press: Oxford,
New York pp. 466–492

Luttikhuizen, Gerard P.
2003 “ύnostic Ideas about Eve's Children and the Salvation of ώumanity”,
in: G.P. Luttikhuizen (ed.), Eve's Children: The Biblical Stories Retold
and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions.Themes in Biblical
Narrative vol. 5, Leiden: Brill, 2003,pp. 203 – 217
2006 Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions. Nag
Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 58. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Marjanen, Antti
2004 “A σag ώammadi Contribution to the Pronunciation of the
Tetragrammaton” in ώannu Juusola, Juha δaulainen and ώeikki Palva
(eds.) Verbum et Calamus. Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of
the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen. Studia Orientalia.
Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental Society. pp. 153-159.

Meyer Marvin & Pagels, Elaine

2007 “Introduction” in εervin εeyer (ed.) The σag ώammadi
Scriptures. The International Edition. New York : HarperOne. pp.1-13.

Meyers, Carol
2013 Rediscovering Eve. Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Pagels, Elaine
1988 Pursuing the Spiritual Eve: Imagery and Hermeneutics in the
Hypostasis of the Archons and the Gospel of Philip. pp. 187–206 in
Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed. Karen L. King. First Trinity
Press International edition 2000, Trinity Press International:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Pearson, Birger A.
1976 “She became into a tree. A note to Cύ II ζ, κλ, 2η-2θ” in ώarward
Theological Review. vol. 69, 3-4. pp. 413–415.
1990 Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity. Studies in Antiquity
and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Rasimus, Tuomas
2009 Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking. Rethinking Sethianism
in the Light of the Ophite Evidence. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean
Studies 68. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Räisänen, Heikki

91
2005 “Marcion” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘ώeretics’
eds. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae vol. 76. pp. 100–125. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Scopello, Madeleine
2007 “The Wisdom of Jesus Christ” in Mervin Meyer (ed.) The Nag
Hammadi Scriptures. The International Edition. New York :
HarperOne. pp.283 – 286.

Skinner, Marilyn B.
2005 Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.

Stroumsa, Gedaliahu A. G.
1984 Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology. Nag Hammadi Studies
XXIV. Leiden: Brill.

Syreeni, Kari
1987 The Making of the Sermon on the Mount. A Procedural analysi of
εatthew’s redactoral activity. Part I : Methodology and Compositional
Analysis. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes
Humanarum Litterarum 44. Helsinki : Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Thomassen, Einar
2006 The Spiritual Seedμ the church of the ‘valentinians’. Nag Hammadi and
Manichaean Studies 60. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Turner, John D.
2001 Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition. Biblioth̀que copte de
Nag Hammadi. Section "études”. 6. Presses de l’Universitae δaval,
2001 : Québec

Williamson
2013 “The Vindication of Redaction Criticism” in Katharine J. Dell, Paul ε.
Joyce (eds.) Biblical Interpretation and Method. Essays in Honour of
John Barton. Great Britain : Oxford.

Wright, M.R.
1995 Cosmology in Antiquity. Sciences of Antiquity. London : Routledge.

Quispel, Gilles
2008 “ύnosticism” in Johannes van τort (ed.) Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica.
Collected Essays of Quilles Quispel. Nag Hammadi and Manichean
Studies vol. 55. Leiden : Boston : Brill. pp. 155–173.

92
2
Appendix: Themes Concerning Eve Characters in Selected Texts
Apocryphon of John
Nature of the On the Origin of the The Testimony of
NHC III BG NHC II Rulers World Truth

Linked to Linked to Linked to Heavenly Eve Spiritual woman Zoe-Eve escapes from the No creation mentioned,
Heavenly Eve Heavenly Eve (epinoia) escapes from the Rulers’ assault, escapes probably the author
(epinoia) (epinoia) Yaldabaoth tries to grasp Rulers’ assault, into a tree. Connection to followed the Genesis
Yaldabaoth tries Yaldabaoth epinoia who is inside turns into a tree. the tree of knowledge? text without interpreting
Creation
to grasp tries to grasp Adam, removes Connection to the it in a way as presented
of Eve
epinoia inside epinoia inside something from Adam, tree of knowledge? in Ap. John., Nat. Rul.
Adam and Adam and Earthly Eve is created and Orig. World.
creates Earthly creates Earthly according the likeness of
Eve Eve epinoia
Yaldabaoth Yaldabaoth Yaldabaoth rapes Rulers try to rape Powers try to rape Zoe- No raping scene
rapes Earthly rapes Earthly Earthly Eve where Spiritual woman, Eve, she leaves her presented
Eve Eve epinoia has appeared. she leaves a likeness (Earthly Eve)
Rape of
epinoia is taken away shadow/likeness of which is raped
Eve
her resemblance
(Earthly Eve) which
is raped
 Apocryphon of John
Nature of the On the Origin of the The Testimony of
NHC III BG NHC II Rulers World Truth

Cain and Abel Cain and Abel Cain and Abel from Cain from Yaldabaoth Abel from Children not mentioned, but
from from Yaldabaoth Abel from Adam or Yaldabaoth, other probably they were understood in
Yaldabaoth; Yaldabaoth Seth from Adam’s from Yaldabaoth children (unnamed) a negative way, because having
Children Seth from Seth from knowing the likeness Seth from Adam from Yaldabaoth’s children means fulfilling the
of Eve Adam’s Adam’s of his foreknowledge knowing his angels. creator god’s commandments.
knowing his knowing his counterpart Eve
lawlessness essence Norea from Heavenly
Eve
The serpent The serpent The serpent teaches The serpent is an The serpent instructs The Serpent is Christ, instructs
teaches humans teaches Eve humans about instrument for humans to eat from Eve to eat from the tree of
Eve and
about sexual about sexual sexual desire Heavenly Eve, the Tree of knowledge.
the
desire desire instructs Eve to eat Knowledge
serpent
from the Tree of
Knowledge