Re: [GTh] Barbelo
> I think I have an answer for that. "Aeon of Barbelo" is found in"Allogenes" which is thought to be Sethian. This may indicate that we might
have two separate Gnostic creation myths to deal with, one pre-Christian,
and Christian Gnostic.
But the question has to do with a supposed connection between Barbelo and
Sophia. Does Allogenes make that connection?
> I propose the following description of Barbelo.....is of the first aeon, Aeon of Barbelo. It is in the masculine gender, as the
> Barbelo: (also, BARBHLW fem.) Sethian form for the Pleroma. Generally it
woman who is "the first male virgin", she has an androgynous connotation.
see Allogenes, Tractate 3, Codex XI, of the Nag Hammadi Lib.
There seems to be some confusion here. 'BARBHLW' is the transliterated Greek
of 'Barbelo' - they're the same name. The 'e' in 'Barbelo' is actually the
long-e (eta, transliterated as 'H'), as opposed to the short-e (epsilon,
transliterated as 'E'). Similarly, the 'o' of 'Barbelo' is the long-o
(omega, transliterated as 'W"), as opposed to the short-o (omicron,
transliterated as 'O'). In lower case, the long-e and long-o are normally
represented by a stroke over the letters, but I don't think that will come
through over email. Anyway, the point is, they're the same name - and the
name is treated as feminine, not masculine (at least, in the Apocryphon of
John). So a better definition might be:
> Barbelo (BARBHLW): Generally the first aeon, "the first male virgin", ithas an androgynous connotation.
I've left out "Sethian form for the Pleroma", because I'm not sure what that
means. Barbelo wasn't regarded as being identical with the Pleroma, as far
as I can see, although ApocJn seems to regard it as both a model and source
of the other aeons. I suppose Barbelo could be said to be a Platonic "form"
of the other aeons in ApocJn, but I don't think you have Platonic "forms" in
mind, and so I'm unclear what you're trying to say.