This section examines the juncture between Gnosticism’s flourishing demon- ology and its astrological cosmology.27
Gnostic dependence on astrological cosmology is highlighted in works like the Apocryphon of John, On the Origin of the World, the Ophite Diagram and the Pistis Sophia, as well as the recently examined Gospel of Judas.28 Gnostic cosmologies incorporate the planets and zodiac. The Gnostics assert that the planets are ruled by archons, considered to be evil daimons. More astrological influence is revealed in Gnostic fondness for hierarchies of seven and twelve: in addition to the seven planetary archons, there are twelve angels who correlate to the signs of the zodiac. The combination of these groups’ astrological associations with their daimonic indications will now be explored.
2.1 Planetary Archons
The seven planetary archons are considered to be demons ruling over the world of corruptible matter. The creator of the planetary realms is a demiourgos often called Yaldabaoth. Thus in Gnosticism, the planetary gods of the Greeks are transformed into archontic demons, each ruling a material world which the soul must pass through and transcend in its ascent to heaven. (Compare
27 It will not cover general indications of astrology in a religion or a text, since the remit of this study is the daimon and astrology. One caveat should be kept in mind regarding religious texts: just because they employ astrological terminology or cosmology is not necessarily an indication of any deep knowledge of either theoretical or practical astrol- ogy; they merely draw upon (perhaps incorrectly or incompletely), and reflect, a common astrological worldview. In fact, it is almost fruitless to correlate what seem like astrolog- ical doctrines with actual astrological doctrines, as some have tried to do. Often the for- mer are truncated for the religion’s or text’s own purposes, misunderstood or otherwise bowdlerised.
28 Some examples of work on these texts include: A. J. Welburn, ‘The Identity of the Archons in the “Apocryphon Johannis”’, VChr 32, no. 4 (1978): 241–54; Welburn, ‘Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram’; A. von Lieven, ‘Gnosis and Astrology. ‘Book IV’ of the Pistis Sophia’, in Under One Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, ed. John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002); J. van der Vliet, ‘Fate, Magic and Astrology in Pistis Sophia, Chaps 15–21’, in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. Anthony Hilhorst and George van Kooten (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005); A. D. DeConick, ‘Apostles as Archons: The Fight for Authority and the Emergence of Gnosticism in the Tchacos Codex and other Early Christian Literature’, in The Codex Judas Papers. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, ed. April D. DeConick (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009).
the Chaldean Oracles, whose bad daimons are under the control of Phusis, Nature [matter], while the good iunges are under the control of Hekate.) An obvious Jewish influence seen in the names of the archons29 may have con- tributed to the transformation from god to demon, in that the planets could not be gods.
2.1.1 Orders, Lists and Names of Archons
The archons are listed in varying orders, and varying names, in Gnostic texts. When seven archons are listed together, connections to planets are often assumed,30 especially since some names have undisputed planetary connections.31 While some can easily be matched with the planet they are said to rule, others are more problematic. Each archon ought to be consistently associated with a particular planet (here including the Sun and Moon), but unfortunately this does not occur in practice. Therefore, scholarly debate is ongoing as to which planets go with which archons. In an attempt to organise and clarify this issue, I shall look closely at the following six texts employing archon names among those used to coordinate names and planets.32
29 D. E. Aune, in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst, eds, DDD, s.v. ‘Archon’, 85. For Jewish names and terminology in Greek magical texts, see G. Bohak, ‘Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere? Notes on the Interpretation of the Voces Magicae’, in Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World, ed. Scott Noegel, Joel Walker, and Brandon Wheeler (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), esp., for our purposes, 71. Welburn, ‘Identity’, also discusses Jewish affinities, 245–46. See also the excellent study of A. Mastrocinque, From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism.
30 In the case of Irenaeus, at I, 30.9 he specifically says ‘. . . moreover, the holy Hebdomad is the seven stars which they call planets’ (Rousseau-Doutreleau, Tome 1/2, 376, ll.173–174: ‘Sanctam autem Ebdomadem septem stellas quas dicunt planetas . . .’).
31 Origen specifically associates Yaldabaoth with Saturn (‘Phainon’); and Iao has close asso- ciations with the Sun (see below).
32 Other correspondences in additional texts have been proposed (e.g., see M. Tardieu, Écrits Gnostiques. Codex de Berlin, trans. Michel Tardieu (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1984), 288; T. Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009), 104; and A. H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1996), 136 n. 43 [endnote on 159]), but I concentrate here on texts with the most similar names, and those most often included in scholarly discussions. For these texts I use the following edtions, whose full citations are in the bibliography (Bonner is also cited here in full). Origin of the World: Layton, 12–134. Brummer Amulet: C. Bonner, ‘An Amulet of the Ophite Gnostics’, Hesperia Supplements 8 (1949): 43–46; 444; idem, Studies in Magical Amulets, chiefly GraecoEgyptian (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950), 135–38 and Plate IX (no. 188). Irenaeus: Rousseau and Doutreleau, Tome 2, 368–69. ‘Coptic Book’:
TABLE 5.1 Six archon lists Origin of the World NHC II, 5, 100.20–24 (§12); 101.25–102.2 (§16) Brummer Amulet Reverse Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, 30.5 ‘Coptic Book’ P. Berlin 20915, Fr. 128,5–833 Origen, Contra Celsum VI, 31, 32 Apocryphon of John NHC II 11,26–34/ BG 41,17–42,6/NHC III 17,21–18,6/NHC IV 18,17–23
Yaldabaoth Ia<ldabaoth?> Ialdabaoth [Ialda]baoth Ialdabaoth Athoth/Iaoth
Iao Iao Iao [Iao] Iao Eloaiou/Eloaios
Sabaoth Sabaoth Sabaoth [S]abaoth Sabaoth Astaphaios/Astaphaios Adonaios Adonai Adonaeus Adonaio[s] [Adonaios]34 Iao/Iao
Eloaios Eloai Eloeus [E]loaios Astaphaios Sabaoth/Adonaios
Oraios Horeus Oreus Oraios Ailoaios Adonin/Adoni
Astaphaios Astaphaios Astaphaeus A[staphaios] Horaios Sabbede/Sabbataios/ Sabbadaios
In five of these six lists (Origin of the World, Brummer Amulet, Irenaeus, the ‘Coptic Book’ and Origen) the names and orders are the most similar, with all five listing Yaldabaoth first.35 Three of the five (Origin of the World, Brummer
Schenke Robinson, Schenke and Plisch, vol. 1, 256–57 (No. 128); vol. 2, 130. Origen, Contra Celsum: Borret, Tome 3, 254–59. Apocryphon of John: Waldstein and Wisse.
33 This order is according to my proposed reconstruction, based on similar lists. Though the editors’ reconstruction in the critical edition is painstaking, the fragmented text is so lacunose that different interpretations could be made of it. See G. Schenke Robinson, H.-M. Schenke, and U.-K. Plisch, eds., Das Berliner “Koptische Buch” (P 20915), 2 vols, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Coptici (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), vol. 1, Fragment 128, 256 (photograph) and 257 (transcription). The lacunae in question occur right in the middle of the list of names. The editors’ reconstruction posits the order Ialdabaoth-Sabaoth-Adonaios-Iaoth-Eloaios-Oraios-Astaphaios, but the empty space after what is probably Ialdabaoth could accommodate ‘Iao’, with Sabaoth follow- ing, then Adonaios, omitting the reconstructed ‘Iaoth’ which follows. The list would then exactly match those of Irenaeus, the Brummer amulet and the Origin of the World (as in Table 5.1). I am grateful to Leo Depuydt and Micah Ross for palaeographical support and advice; the conclusions are my own.
34 Adonaios does not appear in VI.31, where the prayers for the ritual are given, but appears in VI.32 as an archontic name derived from Hebrew.
35 For Origen, I follow the actual order in which he discusses each archon, not the number he assigns it (e.g. ‘seventh’ for Yaldabaoth).
Amulet and Irenaeus) have an identical order of names, and the ‘Coptic Book’ may very well align with them (see n. 33). Two texts, Irenaeus and Origen, refer to ‘Ophite’ diagrams.36 Thus four of the six lists are likely identical. Origen uses the same names, and his first three names align with the other four lists, but he omits Adonaios (see n. 34) and moves Astaphaios above Ailoaios and Oraios.37
The Apocryphon of John is even more of an outlier. Its list does not begin with
Yaldabaoth, some of its names are different and its name order, even if merely reversed, does not match very well with the other five (and especially with the lists containing names in identical order).
In the assignment of archons to planets, scholars agree that Ialdabaoth must be Saturn: Origen makes a specific correlation between Ialdabaoth and ‘Phainon’ (the old name for the planet Saturn).38 Some have assumed that a soul ascent or descent is taking place through the planetary spheres, which would suggest planets assigned to the archons in Chaldean order starting with Saturn for Ialdabaoth.39 Welburn took this position as he sought to align Origen’s text
36 Scholarship on the Ophite diagrams includes H. Leisegang, Die Gnosis (Leipzig: A. Kröner, 1924), 168–74 (with diagram); T. Hopfner, ‘Das Diagramm der Ophiten’, in Charisteria Alois Rzach zum achtzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht (Reichenberg: Stiepel, 1930) (also with dia- grams drawing on Leisegang); Welburn, ‘Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram’; B. Witte, Das Ophitendiagramm nach Origenes’ Contra Celsum VI 22–38 (Altenberge: Oros Verlag, 1993); Logan, Gnostic Truth, 135–37; M. G. Lancellotti, ‘Gli gnostici e il cielo. Dottrine astrologiche e reinterpretazioni gnostiche’, Stude e materiali di Storia delle Religioni 66/n.s. 24, no. 1 (2000): 71–108, esp. 73–86; and, most recently, N. Denzey, ‘Stalking Those Elusive Ophites: The Ophite Diagrams Reconsidered’, in Essays in Honour of Frederik Wisse, ed. Warren Kappeler (Montreal: ARC: Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, 2005), 89–122; Rasimus, Paradise, 107–23; and A. D. DeConick, ‘The Road for the Soul is Through the Planets: The Mysteries of the Ophians Mapped’, in Practicing Gnosis: Ritual, Magic, Theurgy and Liturgy in Nag Hammadi, Manichaean and Other Ancient Literature. Essays in Honor of Birger A. Pearson, ed. April D. DeConick, Gregory Shaw, and John D. Turner (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 37–74.
37 Some scholars have noticed the variation in Origen’s order, e.g. Logan, Gnostic Truth, 136 and n. 44 (p. 159), 138; and Denzey, ‘Stalking Those Elusive Ophites’, 92–93; others, e.g. Rasimus, Paradise, 110, ignore it: ‘(6.31–32), which corresponds almost exactly both with Irenaeus’ list (Adv. haer. 1.30.5), and with most of the other known lists of the seven.’ See the discussion of DeConick’s proposal for this text below.
38 See F. Cumont, ‘Les noms des planètes et l’astrolatrie chez les Grecs’, AC 4, no. 1 (1935): 5–43.
39 See particularly R. van den Broek, Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 69–85; Welburn, ‘Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram’, 263–64.
with the Apocryphon of John.40 Hopfner proposed a Platonic order.41 However, a day-of-the-week order has also been suggested (most recently by Denzey).42 While there are points of contention in her argument, for our four likely
40 Welburn, ‘Identity’, 244–45.
41 Hopfner, ‘Das Diagramm der Ophiten’, 88.
42 Denzey, ‘Stalking Those Elusive Ophites,’ 100–02, citing Robert Grant (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 51) and Simone Pétrement (A Separate God, 65) as previous proponents of this scheme (but I would not characterise Grant’s position as solidly in the day-of-the- week camp). S. Pétrement, ‘Le mythe des sept archontes créateurs peut-il s’expliquer à partir du christianisme?’ in Le origine dello Gnosticismo. Colloquio di Messina 13–18 aprile 1966, ed. Ugo Bianchi (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) (= [with modifications] S. Pétrement, Le Dieu séparé: les origines du gnosticisme (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1984), 79–109, esp. 100–01), here 477–81, makes the interesting proposal that the seven archons’ links to creation stem from and are associated with the 7 days of the Genesis creation myth; only later did they correspond to the planetary names of the 7 days of the week and their astrological origin. See also N. Denzey Lewis, Cosmology and Fate in Gnosticism and GraecoRoman Antiquity: Under Pitiless Skies (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 48; I agree with Denzey Lewis that Pétrement perhaps makes too much of ‘astrological’ planets not creating the world, but there is merit in the latter’s proposal of a link with the 7 days of creation in Genesis and a subsequent connection of the seven archons to planets each ruling a day of the week. (Both systems are based on sequential time.) In 1974 Michel Tardieu had already assumed, but did not assign, an archontic/planetary connection to days of the week: ‘Occupant les sept cieux, Jaldabaoth et ses fils sont les divinités planétaires présidant aux jours de la semaine’: M. Tardieu, Trois mythes gnostiques. Adam, Éros et les animaux d’Égypte dans un écrit de Nag Hammadi (II, 5) (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1974), 64.
TABLE 5.2 Planetary orders
Chaldean Platonic a.k.a. Egyptian
Day of the Week
(beginning with Saturday)
Zodiacal
(beginning with Capricorn)
Saturn Saturn Saturn Capricorn/Aquarius
(Saturn)
Jupiter Jupiter Sun Pisces (Jupiter)
Mars Mars Moon Aries (Mars)
Sun Mercury Mars Taurus (Venus)
Venus Venus Mercury Gemini (Mercury)
Mercury Sun Jupiter Cancer (Moon)
identical cases a weekday order does make the most sense. Among the four, the
Origin of the World mentions ‘Sambathon, which is the week’43 and Irenaeus
(I, 30.4) associates his list with a ‘hebdomad’44 which can mean ‘week’ (i.e. a period of seven days) but also ‘a number of seven’.45 A day-of-the-week order also fits well with these four texts’ order of names and associations of archons with planets.46
The names for the weekdays and their associated planets form a complex system which, in fact, depends on the Chaldean order of the planets to assign planetary hours, a staple of late antique astrological practice.47 The procedure is described, using Egyptian months, by Vettius Valens (b. 120 CE), who calcu- lates his own birth day as an example (it turns out to be a day of Hermes).48 Though the system was in place earlier,49 Cassius Dio (fl. 200–222) makes a full explanation in his Roman History,50 and it is given thorough treatment by Paulus Alexandrinus (fl. 378 CE).51 The usual beginning of the week at this time
43 Layton, ed., 36–37: ⲥⲁⲙⲃⲁⲑⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲑⲉⲃⲇⲟ|ⲙⲁⲥ (101.27–28), trans. Layton et al. 44 ‘Sic quoque Ebdomas perfecta est . . .’. Also a ‘holy Hebdomad’ at I, 30.9 and I, 30.10. 45 LSJ, 466, s.v. ἑβδομάς. Also Lewis and Short, 843, s.v. hebdomas, ‘the number seven,
seven days’.
46 Iao has associations with the Sun (see the evidence laid out in Z. Pleše, Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative and Cosmology in the Apocryphon of John (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 188 and n. 42); Eloaios and Astaphaios are commonly ascribed by scholars to Mercury and Venus respectively.
47 See Appendix I.A, 1.4 (‘Sect and other Ordering Schemes’), 404.
48 Valens, Anthology, I, 9.3–5 (Pingree, 25.18–22): ‘The order of the stars [i.e. planets] in relation to the days goes thus: Sun, Moon, Ares, Hermes, Zeus, Aphrodite, Kronos. The arrangement of the planetary zones is thus: Kronos, Zeus, Ares, Sun, Aphrodite, Hermes, Moon. From this arrangement the hours are designated; from the hours, the day of the subsequent star [planet].’ ἡ δὲ τάξις τῶν ἀστέρων πρὸς τὰς ἡμέρας οὕτως ἔχει· Ἥλιος, Σελήνη, Ἄρης, Ἑρμῆς, Ζεύς, Ἀφροδίτη, Κρόνος. ἡ δὲ τῶν ζωνῶν διάθεσις οὕτως· Κρόνος, Ζεύς, Ἄρης, Ἥλιος, Ἀφροδίτη, Ἑρμῆς, Σελήνη. ἐκ ταύτης δὲ τῆς διαθέσεως αἱ ὧραι σημαίνονται, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ὡρῶν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ ἑξῆς ἀστέρος.
49 See F. Boll, ‘Hebdomas’, in RE, Band VII.2 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1912), cols 2547–87, here 2558, 2574, who cites Plutarch (ca. 45–120 CE), Quaest. conv. IV, 7 (672c) and also mentions evidence from Pompeii.
50 Dio Cassius, Roman History, trans. Earnest Cary, 9 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927), here vol. III, Book 37.18–19.
51 Paulus Alexandrinus, Introduction, Ch. 21 (Boer, 41–45); see above, Chapter 4, Table 4.1 of planetary hours, 135.
was Saturday,52 which aligns with the lists’ beginning with Ialdabaoth. It pro- duces this schema:
Ialdabaoth, Saturn, Saturday Iao, Sun, Sunday
Sabaoth, Moon, Monday Adonaios, Mars, Tuesday Eloaios, Mercury, Wednesday Oraios, Jupiter, Thursday Astaphaios, Venus, Friday
The fact that two of these texts are Gnostic (Origin of the World, Brummer amulet), one early Christian (the ‘Coptic Book’), one anti-Pagan (Irenaeus, who is also anti-Gnostic) and one (the amulet) likely to be used in practice, demon- strates the broad dissemination of this list order. The Irenaeus text (written in the late second century CE) is probably closest to the original creation of the list.
Origen’s text (VI.31) presents the last three names in a different order, and omits Adonaios. Some scholars have assumed Adonaios was left out by mis- take,53 but April DeConick has recently proposed an ingenious solution to Origen’s discrepancies.54 Drawing on the example of Mithraic practices and Numenius’s account of the descent and ascent of souls through the Gates of Cancer and Capricorn (see Porphyry, De antro 21–24, Seminar Classics 609, 20–25), she has determined a sensible reason for Origen’s name order and omission. DeConick does not discuss similar texts, but concentrates only on Origen and Celsus, especially the prayers said in the ritual described by Origen in which Adonaios does not appear. She takes this ritual as one performed by an ‘Ophian-Christian’55 practitioner as a form of spiritual initiation56 rather than an ascent of the soul after death. The initiate begins the spiritual ascent
52 Bouché-Leclercq, AG, 482–83, emphasises the importance of the Sabbath, which is linked to Saturn, in Judaism. Both Cassius Dio and Paulus begin the week/planetary hour scheme with Saturday.
53 E.g. Chadwick: Origen, Origen: Contra Celsum, trans. and annot. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 348 n. 1; Welburn, ‘Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram’, 264; Welburn, ‘Identity’, 244; Lancellotti, ‘Gli gnostici e il cielo’, 74 n. 17; Denzey, ‘Stalking Those Elusive Ophites,’ 109; Witte, Das Ophitendiagramm, 122. 54 DeConick, ‘Road for the Soul’, esp. 57–63.
55 Ibid., 60.
56 Ibid., 64–67. Others have also suggested a ritual during life, anticipating the require- ments of the soul’s ascension after death: see Couliano, Expériences de l’extase, 125 (cited in Lancellotti, 79 and n. 43); Lancellotti, ‘Gli gnostici e il cielo’, 78–80; Witte,
at the gate of Capricorn and moves through the zodiacal realms in sequence (Aquarius-Ialdabaoth, Pisces-Iao, Aries-Sabaoth, Taurus-Astaphaios, Gemini- Ailoaios, Cancer-Horaios) (see Table 5.2, Zodiacal order). This scheme accounts for the order of the last three archon names (Astaphaios-Taurus, Ailoaios- Gemini, Horaios-Cancer) and the omission of Adonaios (whom DeConick aligns with the Sun), because Leo is absent in this part of the zodiac.57 Thus the initiate depends on the zodiac as a conduit to the planets and their associated archons. While I have reservations about some of DeConick’s observations,58 the scheme in general appears sound in this context. It differs from other texts’ lists because it serves a different purpose.
A different purpose applies as well for the list in the Apocryphon of John. This has been obscured by previous scholarly analysis, which has generally tried to tie the lists of these five texts to the differently ordered list in ApJohn, based on similarity of the archon names, and to assign the same order of planets regard- less of archon order. But ApJohn’s version has peculiarities with no parallel in the texts just described.59 First, it contains the names Athoth and Sabbede/ Sabbadaios instead of Horaios and Ialdabaoth. Second, it begins with Athoth, not Ialdabaoth.60 Third, it links the archons to animal faces.61 Fourth, and most important for assigning archons to planets, its archon order is different: it ends, instead of begins, with Sabbede (assumed to be Ialdabaoth), and it places Iao in the centre.
Das Ophitendiagramm, 101–02. See this view regarding Mithraic ritual in Beck, Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders, 77–79.
57 DeConick, ‘Road for the Soul’, 58–60.
58 She relates her proposed scheme to the Mithraic Housesteads monument, ‘only in this case with the Cancer-Leo and Capricorn-Aquarius boundaries.’ Ibid., 61. I argue that the main purpose of this sculpture is different: see below, 3.2., 191–92.
59 Logan, Gnostic Truth, 136 also noticed the difference in the ApJohn text (‘. . . its version remains distinctive . . .’), but his analysis takes a different approach than mine here. R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 46–51, assuming an association with the week because of the use of ‘hebdomad’ and ‘Sabbataios’ in ApJohn, admits that ‘other documents . . . do not work out exactly’ with ApJohn (p. 51; he has previously mentioned Origen and the Brummer amulet). Although Denzey, ‘Stalking Those Elusive Ophites’, 100, acknowledges the differences between ApJohn as a ‘so-called Sethian’ text (p. 91) and the ‘Ophite’ ones, she too ties ApJohn to a week order (emphasising the word ‘hebdomad’ as symptomatic of the week) rather than a Chaldean order.
60 Though it is possible the variants ‘Iaoth’ or ‘Aoth’ could be abbreviations of Ialdabaoth, this does not resolve the name order deviations, and Sabbadaios (and variant spellings) is commonly thought to be Ialdabaoth.
61 The association of animals with Hebrew angel names in Celsus/Origen (VI.30) does not match very well with the assignments in ApJohn.
TABLE 5.3 Archon names and their faces in the Apocryphon of John, with corresponding planet, and zodiac sign from the Dodekaoros
NHC II 11,26–34/BG 41,16–42,7/
III 17,21–18,862
Planet Prosōpon Zodiac sign
(Dodekaoros)
Athoth/Iaoth/Aoth Moon Sheep/Lion (Virgo)