Hi Andrew and David,
I kind of suspected that Iranaeus would use the Jewish forum of the Gnostic creation myth to attack the Christian version. Using Achamoth instead of Sophia may point to how Iranaeus argued heresy, and at the same time convoluted the Christian version. Maybe it is not such a good thing to look for Gnostic answers from Orthodox viewpoints.
I would argue that the Father-Son argument for the Gnostics is solved (or started) by the "Apocraphon of James' which states the "Father is the Son." Perhaps the GThom's, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being," means look to the Nag Hammadi James. The Father-son arguments of the 4th Century may not reflect upon when the Gospel of Truth was written.
The A. of James and the Gospel of Truth are both in the Jung Codex. It might stand to reason that the texts are based upon the same theory of the Pleroma. So may all of the Nag Hammadi texts be based upon a coherent theory of the Pleroma. Does anyone see a 'slip-up' in the other tractates?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]