Version 8 = latest revision of 27 October 2003 (Version 1: 25 Nov. 1997; original document from 1986)
© 1986, 1997-2003 Boudewijn Koole; copying admitted
The roots of Eriugena's interpretation of Gen. 1-3 lie in Philo (ca. 20 B.C. - ca. 50), and Philo is also important as an illustration of the motifs which play a role in the androgyny in the Gospels of Thomas and of Philip. Therefore we deal here first with Philo. In reference to Philo, we can also particularly illustrate his opposition against androgyny, from which we can conclude at the same time that the roots of androgyny as well as the opposition against it are very old indeed.
Against the background of Hellenistic Alexandria with its large Jewish community and many cultural and religious traditions (including the [326-->]mystery religions), Philo tried in his works to reconcile the Jewish religion and Greek culture for readers who could be Jewish as well as Greek. He propagated Jewish monotheism, but interpreted it in a strongly Greek-philosophical way, so that Greek education was incorporated. Particularly interesting is the way in which he interpreted the (Jewish) myths by means of an allegorical method: to read in them the deeper sense of the (Greek) Logos. Although he avoided making enemies (not wanting to alienate his readers from his 'new' interpretations!) and seldom openly used their names, one can assume that he was combating the views of some Jewish groups with 'gnosticizing' tendencies (with which he shares a similar tradition of language and ideas). All this is important because Gen. 1-3 is very central for Philo, and because he refers to the concept of the androgynous first man.
Although Philo always remained faithful to the Jewish Law, the role he attaches to the Logos and the role that he allows the intellect are so large that this becomes the framework for a new stream of thinking which not only deeply influenced Christian theology and Western culture in general, but also explains his attitude towards the concept of androgyny, and his generally Encratitic views of the subject of sexuality (enkrateia = abstinence; for Encratism see the next chapter).
In his book 'On the Creation of the World according to Moses' - of which a summary is given - Philo, by way of the exegesis of Gen. 1-3, presents his views of God, man and the world. God is eternal and unchangeable; the creation, on the contrary, is visible and temporal. Man (only his intellect, not his body and the irrational part of his soul) is an image of God's true Image: the Logos, God's 'intellect'. The creation is modeled after the heavenly ideas (!) described in Gen. 1; the concrete creation is described in Gen. 2-3. The differentiation of the genus man (in Gen. 1:27) in the species male and female is an anticipation of the (only later) actual man and woman. Philo describes man as a microcosm, with reason as his most valuable talent. He makes a sharp distinction between the 'heavenly' man (also called 'true' man, and man 'after the image of God') of Gen. 1:27 and the 'earthly' man of Gen. 2:7, who is mortal, material and soon divided into man and woman. For the first 'earthly' man, the blessed father of all men, was an androgyne. With the coming of the woman, i.e., with the division of this androgyne into man and woman, the disaster of earthly life began: the Fall of man. According to Philo the paradisiacal garden symbolizes the leading part of the soul confronted with the choice between the good and the evil (in everything) - a choice to be made [327-->]by the discrimination of the soul, symbolized by the Tree of Knowledge. What happens is the seduction of sense-perception (the woman) by the passions (the snake), and consequently of reason (the man) by sense-perception (the woman). Then punishment follows: life is to become a heavy task for man (a relatively light punishment: death would have been more adequate). From all this, Philo deduces God's existence and reign over everything, God's unity and the unity of the world (which correspond with each other); namely, by interpreting Jewish mono- theism in the categories of Stoicism (world-soul) and Platonism (dualism of matter and ideas, demiurge etc.).
From the way in which Philo treated androgyny we may deduce our first conclusion: that Philo's basic material implied the androgyny of the first man, created by God, and that Philo deliberately reduced this androgyny to a characteristic only of the first actual man, the 'earthly' man of Gen. 2:7, making by this reduction the 'heavenly' man of Gen. 1:26-27 a-sexual. This becomes evident from the remarkable fact that he nevertheless relates the androgyny of the 'earthly' man to the 'heavenly' man, namely by calling the androgynous (first) 'earthly' man explicitly the one concrete species of the two genera (!) male and female of Gen. 1:27 (so in Leg. All. II, 13).
From Philo's treatment of androgyny and our recapitulation of it we also deduce our second conclusion: that the reason of Philo's reduction of androgyny lies in the contradiction which in his view exists between the androgyny of the 'heavenly' man and the a-sexual - because abstract - character of the higher world of intellect, ideas, Logos and God; precisely the world to which he wished to give a foundation in Gen. 1.
Philo's position is thereupon illustrated in reference to the way in which he formulates his spiritual ideal, particularly the motifs of 'becoming one', 'becoming a virgin' and 'becoming male', as well as the relation of God and the soul, and his description of the community of the Therapeutes - with particular attention to the use of sexual metaphors in this context. Philo established a hierarchical scheme 'God - intellect - sense perception - matter' in combination with the superior status of man in relation to woman (although Philo made the exception to regard woman as equivalent to man on the pure spiritual level as well as on the level of procreation).
This leads us to the following conclusions:
1. Philo's use of sexual metaphors actually supports an Encratitic point of view.
[328-->]2. Philo's free use of sexual metaphors for divine matters can be explained by their frequent use in Philo's surroundings and by Philo's explicit limitation of this use to the level of allegorical interpretation.
3. This, however, leads to a conflict where Philo wants to base his high valuation of intellect and 'logos' (the cornerstone for his allegorical method) on the allegorical explanation of Gen. 1, all the more because Philo's basic material contained the androgynous Anthropos. This becomes clear from the fact that Philo acknowledges the mythical character of the Pentateuch, but strongly denies it to the text of Gen. 1.
4. Consequently there is a conflict in the concept of the 'logos'. Although Philo tries it, it is not possible to base the position of the 'logos' without using the 'myth'. Therefore the opposition between 'logos' and 'myth' (the evaluation of 'logos' over 'myth') cannot be as absolute as Philo states it. 'Logos' is nothing without its material, i.e. the myths.
5. Nevertheless the findings of Philo - the effect of his handling of the relation of 'logos' and 'myth' on the image of God (transcendance), the man-woman-relation (patriarchate), the relation of spirit to body or matter (dualism), the relation of faith and reason (mutual legitimation) - became and remained representative of large parts of Christianity for a long time to come.
Parallel to the fact that Philo's evaluation of the logos as superior to myth did not stop the actual use of myths, we must add here that Philo's view of the intellect does not imply a closed border between reason and transcendance (as is the case with the 'methodological atheism' of modern science); on the contrary, Philo's intellect is open to transcendance in view of his high esteem of contemplation - as a result of which he has also become of great importance to the flowering of contemplative spirituality in Christianity.
In this chapter we finally mention the possibility and the need for further research on androgyny in the Hellenistic Age, its contexts and roots. Particularly the new findings of Nag Hammadi make this research promising, but it is far from finished. In this context we also mention the occurrence in several texts of the reading 'him' instead of 'them' in Gen. 1:27.
Of particular importance is the motif of the (androgynous) 'Anthropos', mainly in Gnostic literature. This Anthropos (Man) goes back to Ezech. 1:26 in the vision of God's glory (Hebrew: kabood) - where on the throne sits 'the likeness as the appearance of a Man' - and already occurs (as Greek 'phoos', 'man') in the work of the Jewish-Alexandrian [329-->]tragedian Ezekiel in the second century B.C. It was this Anthropos which was replaced by Philo's Logos (both being identified with the first light - in Greek also 'phoos' - of creation, and with the Image of God). The Anthropos was in the first place a 'heavenly' Man!
In this chapter a separate paragraph deals with the difference between our views and those of R.A. Bear jr. in his book Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female (Leiden 1970), which also mentions most of the material dealth with in this chapter. Baer did not discover Philo's use of the microcosm-macrocosm-scheme, which brings him to an unnecessarily complicated and artificial interpretation of the difference between Op.M. 134 and 135; and although Baer has seen that there is a relation between Philo and his 'gnosticizing' opponents, he does not elaborate upon it.
In this context we draw our third conclusion: that Philo and Gnosticism differ precisely on the issue of their treatment of the notion of androgyny (in connection with their interpretation of Gen. 1:26-27 and Gen. 2:7): the prominent role of the Logos according to Philo is a deliberate alternative to or even a deliberate replacement of the androgynous Anthropos.
Our suggestion is that these differences between Baer's views and ours are due to the fact that Baer simply shares Philo's high preference for logos over myth, without showing that Philo with this view (which became nearly normative for later Christian thinking) rejected alternatives, which valuated androgyny (or sexuality as such) much higher.
[Return to Contents at top of this document.]
Because the Gospel of Thomas is strongly characterized by its Syriac-Christian surroundings and because Syriac Christianity as a distinctive branch of Christianity had its own separate life for centuries alongside the Greek and Latin branches, we first describe some characteristic aspects of this Syriac Christianity, particularly its Judaic-Christian background, its mainly eschatologically motivated ascetism, and its generally Semitic character.
Because the Gospel of Thomas is also strongly influenced by Encratism, we also sketch the most important backgrounds of Encratism. Of particular importance is the question of how the Greek or Hellenistic Encratism was remodeled in Alexandria into Jewish and Christian Encratism, by combining it with the explanation of Gen. 1-3 as the [330-->]'fall into sexuality', with the original (androgynous) nature functioning as the ideal. We also refer to the relation of Encratism to Gnosticism (which requires further research), and mention particularly the importance of Encratism for Catholic Christianity which was strongly influenced by it, although it condoned marriage for the procreation of children as opposed to absolute Encratism. Encratism has always remained an active element in Christianity.
In the short introduction to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is seen as the teacher who reveals the secrets, the knowledge by which man can now find eternal life by becoming one with Jesus as well as with himself and with the All. From this, a distinction opens up between eternal life and the world of lies and worldly matters, notably family and trade. One should become an itinerant preacher, living on alms; the Kingdom of Heaven is a richness to be distributed. This implies suffering.
Turning to androgyny in the Gospel of Thomas, we can discern that Adam was originally one, but became two. This division implied death and sexuality and being divided within oneself. The self and particularly the light are symbols of the original unity. This reminds one of the so-called 'light body' of Adam in Jewish literature: his garments were the Light of God's glory (Hebrew: kabood). After the Fall, Adam is clothed in darkness and an earthly body. The Fall brings about the opposition between spirit and flesh, life and death, Kingdom and world. The innocent - sexually unconscious - children represent the original state. When one 'tramples the garments of shame', one discovers the original oneness.
The return to the origins implies the renewal of the revelation of the Light of the Father through the 'images' which his sons are. This implies the reunion of man (the 'sons') with his heavenly counterpart (remember that Adam was the Image of God and wore the garments of Light). This return is brought about by Jesus, who is the Light and the All, and implies the restoration of the wholeness of man and the world. The return is also caused by one's rebirth from the true Mother, the Holy Spirit.
The ideals of unity and oneness are combined in the ideal of the monachos, the 'solitary': 'Blessed are the solitary and elected ones', who are the only ones who will enter the Kingdom of God. It is very probable that monachos is the translation of the Syriac ihidaja [to be written with a dot beneath the letter h]and has the technical meaning of 'solitary, elected, bachelor' This 'solitary one' stands above sexual differentiation and is undivided as regards the direction of his soul to God.
[331-->]This ideal of the return to an original oneness is illustrated by the famous Logion 22.
The last Logion, i.e. 114, describes the process of 'becoming male', in order to 'become a living spirit' as the way in which women can also take part in the Kingdom of Heaven.
We can conclude that androgyny in the Gospel of Thomas functions within a strong Encratitic context. The return to the original androgynous state is the end of sexuality, and the attitude towards the practice of sexuality is obviously negative: procreation and marriage are denounced. Where the end of sexuality is described als the end of the female - as in Philo - we experience the influence of a patriarchal context.
[Return to Contents at top of this document.]
First a short introduction is given into Gnosticism, its Jewish origins and Christian existence. Particularly Valentinian Gnosticism - to which the Gospel of Philip relates - is mentioned, with the important role it attached to the divine syzygies (couples), which by their reunion restore the divine Fullness (Pleroma), and with its three levels: pneumatic, psychic and hylic. Gnosis (knowledge) is the redemptive knowledge of one-Self and implies the reunion of all syzygies, as well as of the ego with its heavenly counterpart or 'guardian angel'. Sexuality and androgyny form important parts of Gnostic mythology.
The Gospel of Philip could have originated in Antioch (ca. 200), possibly with Axionicus of Antioch as its author, and could have been built up from catechetic material or parts of sermons, having as their subject the inauguration into the secrets (including the sacraments). There is a strong opposition in the Gospel of Philip between the visible world and the hidden (spiritual, inner and true) world, of which the visible is only an image. Through gnosis one comes to know the secret true names of the realities (instead of the misleading names of earthly language), in which the author initiates his readers as once Christ did his disciples. In the end, the hidden Truth will be revealed and the Light will stream out to 'every son of the bridal chamber'. This happens by way of spiritual begettings instead of earthly ones, which implies the restoration of 'virginity'. Some characteristic citations complete the introduction to the Gospel of Philip.
The Gospel of Philip ascribes the loss of androgynous unity to the failure of 'Adam and Eve' to unite themselves spiritually ('in the bridal [332-->]chamber') with each other and with God, which brings about sexual differentiation and death. Adam fails to beget spiritual children, but Cain is produced (from the communion of Eve and the snake). Where there is no real androgynous union, the male and the female demons have access to the isolated female and male souls and have communion with them. When man again becomes complete, reunited, there will be no more death, as is the case for the sons who are begotten spiritually by the Perfect Man, Christ.
Christ Himself is begotten by the spiritual union of the Father and the Virgin (the background of the theophany on the occasion of Christ's baptism), which produced the 'light body' of Jesus. On the cross Christ separated the world below from the world of God, the Fullness (Pleroma), leaving his earthly body behind, namely, by restoring the separation of the beginning. Christ begets his spiritual sons through the sacraments (including also the 'anointing', the 'redemption' and the 'bridal chamber').
The secret lies in the spiritual union of man (which is only an earthly 'image') with his heavenly counterpart, his guardian angel. This restores his mastery over the demons, over passions and over nature. This reunion is also described as the ascent to God through the spheres, as the knowledge of God, as being clothed with the Perfect Man and with heavenly clothes. This implies a knowledge of one-Self, a restoration of man's true and eternal identity with him-Self in and through Christ.
The most important symbol of this is the union of the bride and the bridegroom in the 'bridal chamber', which has its earthly image in marriage; its hidden meaning is revealed to the knowing believers (the pneumatics).
Next we deal with the evaluation of (earthly) marriage in the Gospel of Philip. It is obvious that as a part of the visible world and only an 'image' of the true reality (the 'bridal chamber') marriage involves all the negative aspects of earthly life: matter, passion, evil, death. In this aspect the evaluation of marriage runs parallel to that of Encratism and of Catholic Christianity. But for the Gnostics, who experience the spiritual reality which places them above (although yet still in) the visible world, marriage nevertheless can and even should be an 'image' of the spiritual reality of the 'bridal chamber', in a positive meaning. This is the particular contribution of Gnosticism to ideas about marriage: not only is spiritual reality described in sexual symbols, but even can earthly sexuality also become a positive phenomenon when expressing this spiritual reality. Underlying this could very well be [333-->]the positive identification of human and divine sexuality in early Hermetism (with its Egyptian background), which was gradually spiritualized in later Hermetism and Gnosticism (which in turn evolved in the directions of Encratism and Catholic Christianity). The ambivalence of the Gospel of Philip in its attitude towards marriage is understandable given its position in the midst of these phenomena. This interpretation finds support in the statement of Theodotus, a pupil of Valentinus, that procreation was still needed to complete the predestined number of Gnostics, and in the sayings of Irenaeus and of Clement of Alexandria, which stressed the positive value attached to marriage by the Valentinians.
The position of women in the Gnostic communities was relatively free compared with that in the Catholic Christian communities, although the dominance of male over female is part of the Gnostic mythology in which it runs parallel to the Encratitic views.
The most important conclusion is that androgyny in the Gospel of Philip is related to a symbolism that uses sexuality in a positive way, and that the evaluation of marriage is positive (compared with that of Encratism and even of Catholic Christianity) given this Gospel's characteristic viewpoint that marriage can and should be an image of spiritual reality. This shows the influence of the myth of the hieros gamos. In principle, marriage is not restricted to the procreation of earthly children, but has a spiritual meaning.
[Return to Contents at top of this document.]
The historical roots of androgyny in Christianity are pre-Christian, for they go back to the Jewish creation stories and beyond, and to the view of man as a microcosm in the Greek tradition. Both traditions are connected with each other in the Hellenistic age, notably in Jewish and Christian Gnosticism which remodeled the first forms of what we now call 'androgyny'.
The de-sexualizing which is characteristic of Gen. 1 (very probable in its present form a reaction to a view or a milieu which saw divine and human sexuality as parallel to each other) was thereby undone partially or totally: the thought that the first man united in himself male and female (which was possibly still recognizable in the text) was elaborated in a variety of ways, in which the partially suppressed but elsewhere still living motifs of the hieros gamos were involved, notably [334-->]in the form of the spiritual union of God and the soul, sometimes in combination with the union of the male and the female (in couples or syzygies) in God. This revival was probably favoured by influences from Egyptian religion via Hermetism which so passed into Jewish and Christian Gnosticism, albeit in the form of a spiritualization. Nevertheless human sexuality was thereby positively evaluated with respect to its relation with divine sexuality (particularly in Valentinian Gnosticism, as in the Gospel of Philip). Motifs from the context of the Great or Mother-Goddess and from the Sophia-traditions could also have an important function.
In keeping with the de-sexualizing of the image of God which we can see reflected in the books of the Old Testament, and which was connected with the establishment of Jewish patriarchal monotheism, the attitude towards sexuality was mainly negative in Christianity. The strong eschatological tendencies which could lead to Jesus' liberation from a patriarchal law of divorce (in favour of the woman and the - monogamous - marriage) as well as from marriage as such, in combination with a certain radicalisation of morality, but particularly with Encratitic influences, resulted in a preference for celibacy above marriage (as in Syriac Christianity, notably the Gospel of Thomas; but see already St. Paul in I Cor. 7), and in a principally negative view of sexuality. It is not to be denied that these two opposite views of sexuality and continence have been an important subject for discussion in the Christian movements of the first two centuries. It has also to be stated that both views could imply a liberation for women in the form of higher evaluation in comparison with the current patriarchal traditions. This 'struggle' came to an end (for the time being) in the victory of Catholic Christianity over both extreme views. As we can see from the Gospels of Philip and of Thomas, both the positive and the negative attitudes towards sexuality can be related with or even reduced to the same combination of Gen. 1-3 and androgyny.
The negative attitude of sexuality has, however, yet another root. Together with the developments already mentioned, still another development took place: the transcendentalization of the image of God. Philo supported the transcendance of God in relation to Creation with a strong position of the Logos and vice versa: the mutual legitimation of Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophy. The Jewish myths were allegorized on that occasion (which implies that they were de-mythologized); but at the same time, the position of the Logos was founded in the 'myth' (!) of Gen. 1. According to Philo, the Logos [335-->]was the true Image of God, and man the image of this Image.
By this interpretation Philo provided not only the foundations for later Christian dogmatics (and contemplative spirituality) but also for the Jewish and Christian forms of absolute or moderate Encratism: good = spiritual = a-sexual = male, and bad = material = sexual = female. Philo deliberately continued the de-sexualization of the image of God. To this end, Philo combined Platonic dualism with Platonic and Jewish views on the relation of man and woman. Although Catholic Christianity adopted the toleration of marriage as its main position, from Philo's views it is understandable that for Christian thinking the negative attitude to matter, body, sexuality and woman remained in principle the determining one, and that this negative attitude was inexorably connected with the prevalence of intellect (above the passions and the sense-perceptible world) and of man (above woman).1 So one should not be surprised that we discovered Philo's views - particularly his explanation of Gen. 1-3 - to be a deliberate alternative to Gnostic or Gnosticizing views which linked the notion of androgyny with a positive attitude to sexuality.
Androgyny in the Christian traditions is thus closely connected with the androgyny of the first man, i.e. with the 'Adam' of Gen. 1-3, the Image of God, who was divided into Adam and Eve. The advent of sexuality and death is presented as a consequence of the loss of the original heavenly and divine consciousness (symbolized by Adam's sleep), i.e., the loss of contact with the highest level, or the narrowing of consciousness. The history of the world and of humanity began with an androgynous Man, the Image of God, which was obscured by the 'Fall' into the earthly level of this Man, which was split into the two sexes.
Philo already knew this heavenly Man, in Greek: the Anthropos, and replaced him with the Logos. But traces of this Anthropos, which can be found in Ezech. 1:26 - in the vision of the glory of God (Hebrew: kabood) - and which played an important role in Gnosticism, are already as old as the work of the Jewish-Alexandrian tragedian Ezekiel in the second century B.C. This heavenly Anthropos, clothed with the Light of God, became the background of the Christian elaborations of androgyny in the Gospels of Thomas and of Philip, in Encratism and Gnosticism (as well as of the Adam Kadmon-figure in the Jewish tradition, which is not dealt with here). Philo saw (the first) man as a microcosm; and already in Philo we can see traces of Plato's myth [336-->]- from the Symposium - of the splitting of the primordial androgynous men, meant to symbolize the origin of 'eros'.
In all further forms of androgyny in the Christian tradition we find the connection with Gen. 1-3 as the basis of the concepts of God man and the world (in their mutual relations): the purpose which God had with Adam as ruler over the world, and so forth.
In Early Christianity we see that the restoration of the image is very important: through baptism, or the anointing before baptism, the Christian is reborn, he finds his original nature or identity, the unity with God. This 'spiritual' or 'religious' identity also entailed for the oldest Christians the foundation of a new social identity (cf. Gal. 3:28). Whereas Gnosticism elaborated upon this a mythology in which there was room for the role of sexuality (particularly in the symbolism of the 'bridal chamber' and of the 'spiritual begettings'; cf. the Gospel of Philip), we see in Encratism that the role of sexuality diminishes (cf. the a-sexual character or the spiritual unity of the 'monachos' in the Gospel of Thomas).
Within the frame of the theological or philosophical systematization in later Catholic Christianity, we can discern - in accordance with the views of Philo - a depreciation of the myths themselves in favour of their allegorical interpretation.
Nevertheless, Philo not only failed to eliminate androgyny completely, but his interpretation of Gen. 1-3 (the division into a 'first' and a 'second' creation, of the 'world of the ideas' and the 'concrete world') as well as traces of androgyny, were even to be found up to Eriugena, for whom androgyny still was a central element of the Christian doctrine of Sin and Redemption. When in the Middle Ages this doctrine was elaborated into a theologically, philosophically, juridically and politically established system, which as it were legitimated itself, its mythical basis could be reduced still more and androgyny vanished even as an ornament. After its underground existence (notably in the context of alchemy), androgyny appeared again in the works of Jacob Boehme who was also inspired by the Jewish kabbalah.
The elaborations of androgyny in Eriugena and Boehme share a number of characteristics including: 1. the combination of religious truth and a 'scientific' knowledge of nature and world in systems which recapitulate the Self-Revelation of God in Creation, Revelation and Redemption, which should further man's participation in God's Self- Revelation, and which imply at the same time a theodicy; 2. the [337-->]important role of man as a microcosm in connection with the origin and the resolution of all antitheses in man and nature; 3. a striving after the most complete identity of God with man, yet with the preservation of the distinction between them; 4. a distinction between the revealed and the hidden side of God; 5. the 'Fall' from the heavenly to the earthly level is accompanied by the loss of 'heavenly procreation' (in favour of an 'earthly' one); 6. the use of Neoplatonic elements.
Eriugena's system is of a rational and optimistic character (in respect to evil as well: if the will gives the intellect its good direction, then the intellect can manage it alone). Androgyny has in his views an a-sexual character, and the relation between man and woman is seen as strictly patriarchal. In all this Eriugena is strongly akin to Philo.
Characteristic of Boehme is: 1. his elaboration of the dialectical process of the oppositions and their resolution into a new equilibrium; 2. the influence on his conceptions of alchemy and the kabbalah; 3. the inner revelation to the reborn people, who - when in an enlightened state - can (almost) fully know God, man and world; 4. his accent on the necessity, the way and the means to achieve rebirth, inclusive of the dialectics of resignation and will; 5. androgyny of and within God (the two fires and their relation), the role of 'conjunctions' and 'imaginations' (comparable to the role of the syzygies and the motifs of the hieros gamos in Gnostic mythology) as the foundation of all the processes of reality, as well as Sophia's relation to the soul; 6. the important role of evil in the process of Creation, Revelation and Redemption - at all levels, of material nature as well as of human existence and of God; 7. the combination of a 'Gnostic' spirituality with an 'Encratitic' attitude to (earthly) sexuality; 8. his nevertheless very positive view of the woman and the female, as well as of the body, in the eventual Restoration.
Although this study does not deal in length with the notion of androgyny in the time after Boehme, we mention here that androgyny was not an element in those circles in which the modern scientific world-view of Descartes was dominant, but rather where religious piety, artistic symbolism, or esoteric wisdom formed a favourable climate for it, as a conscious or unconscious counterweight against the 'Enlightenment'.
In the very positive attitude to marriage - with androgyny as its foundation - and the relatively positive appreciation of corporality in Von Baader and Gunning, we find support for the view that with androgyny in Christianity a positive as well as a negative attitude towards [338-->]sexuality and marriage can be combined. Boehme's ideal of marriage as a spiritual union formed the starting-point for this attitude of Von Baader and Gunning, as well as for the 'Encratitic' consequences which Gichtel and Arnold drew form it2: the rejection of earthly marriage as incompatible with the marriage of the soul with Sophia.3
In all cases androgyny in Christianity is a symbol of perfection, namely of the perfect unity of man and God, of man with him-Self, of God within Himself.4 In all cases the Light (of God's glory) is one of its most important expressions. In every case Christ fulfills the role of the Restorer as a counter-image to Adam.
We can further note that the symbolism of androgyny is congruent with a Gnostic climate (as in the Gospel of Philip and Boehme), and that it is reduced in a climate of de-mythologization or rationalization, where the role of the intellect is more prominent (cf. Philo and Eriugena). These climates differ as well in the views of the evil, of its role and how to fight against it.
The unfamiliarity of modern readers with androgyny is due in part to its connection with the pre-modern view of the world, which was pushed aside by the scientific view of reality. Conversely, modern interest in androgyny often accompanies the search for alternatives to the rationalistic consciousness of science, which is then experienced as too determinative for our culture.
In most cases, the Christian spiritual symbolism we encountered in the context of androgyny, shows the traces of processes of spiritualization: e.g., the spiritualization of the sexual symbolism in Gnosticism, the appreciation of spirit above matter under the influence of Platonic dualism from Philo onwards, and the resulting ambivalent attitude towards the earthly, which was mainly negative, but sometimes positive. In this context we note too, that matter can on the one hand be presented as temporal; and on the other hand, yet can play a role at the heavenly level (cf. the 'heavenly corporality').
The Christian authors on androgyny expressed, however, the conviction that the fundamental unity of the whole reality is so simple and at the same time so strong that it can entail or resolve all contradictions, antitheses, and oppositions, even the strongest ones.
[Return to Contents at top of this document.]
[339-->]1. For a much broader context (a.o. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel) see now: Genevieve Lloyd, The Man of Reason ('Male' and 'Female' in Western Philosophy), London 1984 (about Philo: 22-28). [Return to text.]
2. Cf. E. Benz, Adam (Der Mythus vom Urmenschen), München-Planegg 1955, 101- 134. [Return to text.]
3. For (partially) parallel views in the kabbalah (the refusal of the man-woman- relation as well as the glorification of it) see: G. Langer, Liebesmystik der Kabbala, München-Planegg 1956, 75-84 ('Der tragische Konflikt der beiden erotischen Richtungen und seine Folgen für die Gemeinschaft') as well as the preceding chapters in that book. Return to text.]
4. (Note added to the original text, 24 November 1997.) Perfection as concept is in a certain sense probably also a reduced or at least remodeled expression of mutual completion and reproduction as older form of it; that is to say, this reduction or remodelling is, within this context of androgyny, parallel to the reduction of the myth of androgynous wholeness into hierarchic leveled separations and oppositions as for example between God and man, intellect and sense, man and woman (see above). Insofar as perfection and completion imply and express consciousness, their distinctive forms are still to be discerned and described (cf. among many others scientific consciousness with consciousness in the psychology of Jung, the last being - through its roots in alchemy - the modern descendant of the old completion/reproduction model). [Return to text.]
[Return to Contents at top of this document.]
URL: http://www.bk-books.eu/androgsum2.html
Version 8 = latest revision of 27 October 2003 (Version 1: 25 Nov. 1997; original document from 1986)
© 1986, 1997-2003 Boudewijn Koole; copying admitted
in case acknowledgement is provided (at least reference to site: www.bk-books.eu and with link to url (unique resource location or web-address) of the text copied or referred to; if wished so with your valuation)