Who is this Abraxas fellow

[Ishraqiyun]

There seem to be numerous competing theories regarding the nature of this entity among different Gnostic groups. Some see him as follows:

1. The demiurge himself. Another name for old yaldy.

2. A repentent archon who was given rulership over the cosmos after Sophia tossed Yaldabaoth into Tarterus. He now dwells just outside the seven Archontic heavens.

3. One of the many Aions of the Pleroma.

4. The supreme God and the Father of Christ. Irenaeus attributes this view to Basilides. The modern Gnostic CG Jung seems to favor this one too (see The Seven Sermons to the Dead).

So what's up here? Who , if anyone, was on the right track?

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

He seems tied to creation, the demiurge would be my guess.

 

[gord44]

In some ways I see Abraxas as us. The human who is dead, who has no knowledge of himself. Abraxas is sometimes mentioned as being totally good and totally bad, leading to a very sinister character. When a person doesn't know himself, and is unaware of his unconscious, he can become an Abraxas, even as he walks thinking he is good, his shadow is in the unconscious, working sinister motives that the man has no idea about.

My 2 cents.

 

[Soulgazer]

In some ways I see Abraxas as us. The human who is dead, who has no knowledge of himself. Abraxas is sometimes mentioned as being totally good and totally bad, leading to a very sinister character. When a person doesn't know himself, and is unaware of his unconscious, he can become an Abraxas as even as he walks thinking he is good, his shadow is in the unconscious, working sinister motives that the man has no idea about.

My 2 cents.

This is the closest--- Gnostic terms are tied to self identity.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

What is Tarterus?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

In some ways I see Abraxas as us. The human who is dead, who has no knowledge of himself. Abraxas is sometimes mentioned as being totally good and totally bad, leading to a very sinister character. When a person doesn't know himself, and is unaware of his unconscious, he can become an Abraxas, even as he walks thinking he is good, his shadow is in the unconscious, working sinister motives that the man has no idea about.

My 2 cents.

I think Jung said man too is Abraxas. Maybe he is a figure like Adamas or the Primal Man?

He also called him the force if individuation.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus

A bad spelling of Tartarus on my part.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I was just reading the Gospel of the Egyptians, a Sethian Gospel, it says that Abrasax was an emanation of the Aion Eleleth or that he is "from the great light Eleleth". So I guess in that tradition he would be an Aion of the Fullness rather than an archon or being of the deficiency.

You can read a translation here
The Gospel of the Egyptians -- The Nag Hammadi Library

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

I was just reading the Gospel of the Egyptians, a Sethian Gospel, it says that Abrasax was an emanation of the Aion Eleleth or that he is "from the great light Eleleth". So I guess in that tradition he would be an Aion of the Fullness rather than an archon or being of the deficiency.

First thought is always to Basilides' Abrasax where he is identified with 365 and 7 (and 4?). This seems more tied to creation in my opinion. But you are absolutely right he is mentioned in Sethian texts in a positive manner as servants or attendants to a Luminary. He is also mentioned in the Apocalypse of Adam, Zostrianos and possible Three Forms of First Thought (in lacunae). In the Sethian text he seems much less significant though than that one we find in Basilides and on the amulets.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

Abraxas is such a weird figure. Is there any possible underlying reason why he is seen differently by different Gnostic groups? Is this an example of infighting?

There are so many different aeons and archons to pick from that I would have thought each new myth would either choose a figure more consistent to write about, or just create a new one.

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Abraxas is such a weird figure. Is there any possible underlying reason why he is seen differently by different Gnostic groups? Is this an example of infighting?

There are so many different aeons and archons to pick from that I would have thought each new myth would either choose a figure more consistent to write about, or just create a new one.

I think the two main groups, Basilides and Sethians had two different Abrasax. If you read the Sethian texts you will find a host of "Angelic" beings with names often times we have no clue of where they came. A good chance is the Sethians just took whatever "Angelic" beings that were around and wove them into their myths. Basilides on the other hand perhaps treated Abrasax more in the way he was thought of originally. That would be my take on it.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I think the two main groups, Basilides and Sethians had two different Abrasax. If you read the Sethian texts you will find a host of "Angelic" beings with names often times we have no clue of where they came. A good chance is the Sethians just took whatever "Angelic" beings that were around and wove them into their myths. Basilides on the other hand perhaps treated Abrasax more in the way he was thought of originally. That would be my take on it.

Do you think Hippolytus ,Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome were correct in their portrayal of the role of Abraxas in the system of Basilides? The he considered Abraxas "the power above all, and First Principle," and "the cause and first archetype" and that Christ was sent into the world by him? Jerome claimed that Basilides considered Abraxas the "highest God" and "the Greatest God"

I ask because he looks kind of scary like a demiurge aught to look on the Abraxas gems and they occasionally contain other names that are often connected with the demiurge like Sabaoth and Iao. It kind of confuses me there.

The people who did the Wikipedia article seem to doubt the accuracy of the Patristic writings saying:

It is evident from these particulars that Abrasax was the name of the first of the 365 Archons, and accordingly stood below Sophia and Dynamis and their progenitors; but his position is not expressly stated, so that the writer of the supplement to Tertullian had some excuse for confusing him with "the Supreme God."

​

I notice that the wikpedia page also talks about Abrasax coming from Eleleth too. I must have forgot about that because I knew I read that entry before at one point:

As an Aeon

With the availability of primary sources, such as the those in Nag Hammadi library, the identity of Abrasax remains unclear. The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, for instance, refers to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Pleroma in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Pleroma that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.
​

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Do you think Hippolytus ,Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome were correct in their portrayal of the role of Abraxas in the system of Basilides? The he considered Abraxas "the power above all, and First Principle," and "the cause and first archetype" and that Christ was sent into the world by him? Jerome claimed that Basilides considered Abraxas the "highest God" and "the Greatest God"

I ask because he looks kind of scary like a demiurge aught to look on the Abraxas gems and they occasionally contain other names that are often connected with the demiurge like Sabaoth and Iao. It kind of confuses me there.

The people who did the Wikipedia article seem to doubt the accuracy of the Patristic writings saying:

It is evident from these particulars that Abrasax was the name of the first of the 365 Archons, and accordingly stood below Sophia and Dynamis and their progenitors; but his position is not expressly stated, so that the writer of the supplement to Tertullian had some excuse for confusing him with "the Supreme God."​

The quote from Irenaeus seems to validate the doubt.

3. Basilides again, that he may appear to have discovered something
more sublime and plausible, gives an immense development to his
doctrines. He sets forth that Nous was first born of the unborn father,
that from him, again, was born Logos, from Logos Phronesis, from
Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis, and from Dynamis and Sophia the powers,
and principalities, and angels, whom he also calls the first; and that
by them the first heaven was made. Then other powers, being formed by
emanation from these, created another heaven similar to the first; and
in like manner, when others, again, had been formed by emanation from
them, corresponding exactly to those above them, these, too, framed
another third heaven; and then from this third, in downward order,
there was a fourth succession of descendants; and so on, after the same
fashion, they declare that more and more principalities and angels were
formed, and three hundred and sixty-five heavens. [2942] Wherefore the
year contains the same number of days in conformity with the number of
the heavens.

The ruler over the 365 heavens is likely one of the "powers, and principalities, and angels".​

 

[Soulgazer]

Abraxas is such a weird figure. Is there any possible underlying reason why he is seen differently by different Gnostic groups? Is this an example of infighting?

There are so many different aeons and archons to pick from that I would have thought each new myth would either choose a figure more consistent to write about, or just create a new one.

Again you have to go back to fractured judaism. We have the Torah and the books of prophets that represent just a portion of Judaism. Hellenization brought in all kinds of outside ideas....this is when the thought occurred that maybe the Jewish God wasn't just the God of Israel, but of the whole world, and that each nation did not each have their own God, but that there was only one. So outside writings were reluctantly studied to find out what other nations knew about God, for indeed some of those others spoke of an afterlife.

Abraxis is an enigmatic character, but i can tell you this much--- most Archons and emenations were descriptive of the human character. "Let us create them in our own image" was the blue print for the study of the human makeup to try and locate that "us". "As above, so below".

After Christ, Sophia was dualistic for instance. The fallen Sophia was human wisdom creating a god of false light (All who ever came before me were as thieves and robbers) and the risen Sophia reunited with her Consort represents the believer who has found the True God through Christ.

"And Pistis Sophia cried out most exceedingly, she cried to the Light of lights which she had seen from the beginning, in which she had had faith, and uttered this repentance, saying thus: etc" ~PS :32 preamble

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I think I've come to a conclusion regarding how I'm going to view Abraxas in my own mythology thanks to a little help from the Pistis Sophia. The name Sabaoth is often included on Abraxas gems and for that reason (and his Archontic appearance) many scholars (and many un-credentialed speculators like myself) consider them to be the same dude. The name Yaldabaoth is often translated to mean "begetter of sabaoth". Sabaoth is then one of the demiurges offspring. This connection lends credence to the idea of him being a reformed Archon who now works for the liberation of light because that's exactly how the Pistis Sophia describes Sabaoth. The PS also calls him "Good" and the "soul" and he seems to represent both the redeemed cosmic soul as well as the redeemed personal soul.

Darn it! I lost the bookmark. Now I have to go skim through the whole book again to find the quotes I wanted to post. I'll put those up later I guess.

I'll find it again soon I'm sure.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Ok, here are a few quotes on Sabaoth from the PS:

"And moreover the receivers of the Light hand it over to the great Sabaōth, the Good, who is at the gate of the Life in the region of those of the Right, who is called 'Father.' And that soul giveth him the glory of his songs of praise and his seals and his apologies. And Sabaōth, the Great and Good, sealeth it with his seals. And the soul giveth its science and the glory of the songs of praise and the seals to the whole region of those of the Right. They all seal it with their seals; and Melchisedec, the great Receiver of the Light who is in the region of those of the Right, sealeth that soul and all the receivers of Melchisedec seal that soul and lead it into the Treasury of the Light.

​

This part is interesting the word "peace" in the OT saying "Grace and truth met together, and righteousness and peace kissed each other." is interpreted to mean Sabaoth. It's a little too much to type out here but thankfully I found a full version of the Pistis Sophia translated online so you can read the chapter here:

Pistis Sophia: The Second Book of Pistis Sophia: Chapter 63

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I hope to find a more modern translation at some point. The Old English makes an already esoteric text even harder to take in. Why one earth anyone would translate it that way is beyond me.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I just came across something on this from the book "Jung and Lost Gospels" by Stephen Hoeller as well:

Ever since those days, humankind lived in conflict and division, for the chief ruler had divded it in wrath. The true Gnosis became rare and the children of men learned about useless and dead things and their knowledge became worldly and corrupt. Still the human race was never left alone, for it had helpers in the high aeions. Not only Sophia and her angels, but some tyrant angels also turned from the evil of their chief and returned to service of the light. The greatest of these was the the brother of Yaldabaoth, and he is named Sabaoth and also Abraxas. This spirit renounced the works of his blind and evil brother and submitted to his mother Sophia, who appointed him the ruler of the seventh heaven, from whence he ever calls after the fashion of a celestial chanticleer to all beings, so that they might awaken and renounce the works of darkness.

At a later time, conflict arose between the children of men who still served the tyrant angels and those who had be liberated by Gnosis. The servants of Yaldabaoth betrayed the knowers, and the rulers rained fire and brimstone on them, hoping to destroy them. Abraxas- Sabaoth, assisted by other might angles of light rescued them. So that the plan of the rulers once again came to naught. (This became known as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.)"
​

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The later PS quote I linked to seemed to connect Abraxas with the incarnation in some manner just as Basilides was said to have done according to the account of one of the "Church Fathers" I quoted above.

 

[gord44]

Interesting stuff Ish. Thanks for sharing!