I've changed my mind about Gnosticism

[James the Persian]

What evidence do you have for the cult aside from textual evidence?

Depends on the cult. Now, admitting that I'm biased against Gnosticism, I have to say that there is the evidence of authors outside of the Gnostic groups. Obviously this is still textual evidence, but it's not evidence from Gnostic 'scripture' which is what I was actually saying.

Do you disagree that Thomas can make better sense in light of cosmology explicit in later texts?

No. But which cosmology? There's more than one cosmology at play in Gnostic groups. Valentinian cosmology, for instance, is rather different from some of the more dualist Gnostic cosmologies.

The simple answer to my mind is that while there are different groups, some groups produced more than one text which describes their beliefs, so more than one text represents one cosmology.

I don't disagree, so long as you agree that the Gnostics were not a unified group with a unified cosmology but rather a collection of cults with often radically different cosmologies.

James

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No. But which cosmology? There's more than one cosmology at play in Gnostic groups. Valentinian cosmology, for instance, is rather different from some of the more dualist Gnostic cosmologies.

The one that I cited in the OP.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't disagree, so long as you agree that the Gnostics were not a unified group with a unified cosmology but rather a collection of cults with often radically different cosmologies.

James

Just as unified as the orthodox.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just as unified as the orthodox.

Ha! Just ribbing you, James. :biglaugh:

As a scholar, I have to refer to Judaisms, Christianities, and now Gnosticisms rather than refering to these groups in the singular so as to recognize the wide variety of each group (s).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The simple answer to my mind is that while there are different groups, some groups produced more than one text which describes their beliefs, so more than one text represents one cosmology.

I don't disagree, so long as you agree that the Gnostics were not a unified group with a unified cosmology but rather a collection of cults with often radically different cosmologies.

James

I agree... but that begs the question - what is the common denomenator that "unites" these various groups under the rather general term 'Gnostic'?

The Nag Hammadi texts are not unified completely with respect to cosmology, but some texts make sense only when interpreted through complimentary cosmology. The elitest nature of Gnosticism - which is often presented as the common denomenator of Gnostic groups - is not a priority in many so-called Gnostic texts.

 

[Halcyon]

Is it ok for me to comment in this DIR? If not feel free to delete it James.

The Nag Hammadi texts are not unified completely with respect to cosmology, but some texts make sense only when interpreted through complimentary cosmology. The elitest nature of Gnosticism - which is often presented as the common denomenator of Gnostic groups - is not a priority in many so-called Gnostic texts.

I'd say that James is right in that Gnosis is the common denominator of Gnostic religions, unsurprisingly.
Marcion is often called Gnostic, for some reason, although he wasn't as he had no concept of Gnosis.

The thing with Gnostic cosmology is, although it is quite varied between sects, when you boil it down you have a simple formula;
1. God is the true and only reality.
2. Humans are ignorant of God.
3. The world keeps us ignorant.
4. Gnosis frees us from ignorance and returns us to God.

Yaldaboath, the fall and rise of Sophia, Echamoth and Echmoth etc are mythological tools for explaining these basic concepts, embodying them in a salvific story/example and for confusing the literalists .

With Thomas, if you have the four points laid out above in mind then every teaching makes sense. Thomas also makes sense when looked at from a Buddhist mindset, which is weird but interesting, because the underlying themes are really very simple.

I'll have to defend the idea that Gnostics were elitist. I think that element was largely exaggerated by the church fathers to create a greater dichotomy between the proto-orthodox and their Gnostic rivals. Certain accounts (although don't ask me where from, Pagels mentioned them i imagine) from those same church fathers criticised Gnostic sects for allowing anyone to attend their meetings from any background or religion, even pagans! oh my...
Men and women played equal roles and there was no hierarchy, everyone was equal and people got to take on different roles at each meeting - bishop, prophet etc.

The elitism comes in with some Sethian Gnostics (the oldest Gnostic sect that was entirely Jewish before embracing Christian aspects, and from which Valentinianism evolved), they called themselves the Children of Seth and taught that they were the few chosen people among the great masses - which reflects IMO their Jewish origin, they were the chosen of the chosen people of God.
Later Gnosticism was only elitist in that it required people had a certain level of understanding of Gnostic thought before they revealed the whole shebang. Much like today people who want to convert to Judaism need to spend years studying.

People who were more materialistic, and those who believed in a more traditional "bearded guy in the sky with lightning bolts" concept of God (Psychicals) weren't considered 'ready' to be taught pneumatic thought, although they were still welcome at meetings - i guess in the hope that they'd see the error of their ways .

Out of interest, how in the world can you consider Protestant Christianity to be Gnostic? From my POV its even less Gnostic that Catholicism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Out of interest, how in the world can you consider Protestant Christianity to be Gnostic? From my POV its even less Gnostic that Catholicism.

All forms of Protestantism are Gnosticising, and it is evident in many flavors (eg., liberal, moderate, and evangelical). Basically, Protestantism shed itself of every kind of ecclesiastical rule (such as Church Tradition, councils, canons, and *for the West* the Pope) and replaced it with personal interpretation of one canon - the Scripture - and following the holy Spirit.

In doing so, every Protestant is elitest, they create their own fanciful theological reality, they think that everyone else is ignorant, the world keeps people ignorant, and their interpretation returns people to God.

1. God is the true and only reality.
2. Humans are ignorant of God.
3. The world keeps us ignorant.
4. Gnosis frees us from ignorance and returns us to God.

 

[James the Persian]

Is it ok for me to comment in this DIR? If not feel free to delete it James.

It's fine. Discussing this politely is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable no matter what religion you claim.

[I'll have to defend the idea that Gnostics were elitist. I think that element was largely exaggerated by the church fathers to create a greater dichotomy between the proto-orthodox and their Gnostic rivals. Certain accounts (although don't ask me where from, Pagels mentioned them i imagine) from those same church fathers criticised Gnostic sects for allowing anyone to attend their meetings from any background or religion, even pagans! oh my...
Men and women played equal roles and there was no hierarchy, everyone was equal and people got to take on different roles at each meeting - bishop, prophet etc.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by the charge of elitism as it comes from the orthodox, because what you've said here doesn't dispell it at all. I agree that the Sethians (which I agree with you are pre-Christian originally Jewish Gnostics, though I guess A_E would doubt this) are the most obviously elitest in that (rather like Calvinism) they believed in a sort of already extant elite. All the Gnostic sects, by virtue of the idea of gnosis, are elitest in a different sense, and it's that sense that the Church Fathers meant it.

In Gnosticism, salvation is achieved through Gnosis. Not everyone can achieve this and hence those that do constitute an elite, whether one that is innately superior or superior by dint of what they have achieved is irrelevant. In contrast, in Orthodoxy there is no elite, salvation is free to all, no special knowledge is required and, in fact, everyone is already saved by the Incarnation (though they also must work on themselves). In other words salvation depends on the grace of God freely poured out on all, not the gnosis of the individual only attainable by a few.

James

 

[Halcyon]

I think you misunderstand what is meant by the charge of elitism as it comes from the orthodox, because what you've said here doesn't dispell it at all. I agree that the Sethians (which I agree with you are pre-Christian originally Jewish Gnostics, though I guess A_E would doubt this) are the most obviously elitest in that (rather like Calvinism) they believed in a sort of already extant elite. All the Gnostic sects, by virtue of the idea of gnosis, are elitest in a different sense, and it's that sense that the Church Fathers meant it.

In Gnosticism, salvation is achieved through Gnosis. Not everyone can achieve this and hence those that do constitute an elite, whether one that is innately superior or superior by dint of what they have achieved is irrelevant. In contrast, in Orthodoxy there is no elite, salvation is free to all, no special knowledge is required and, in fact, everyone is already saved by the Incarnation (though they also must work on themselves). In other words salvation depends on the grace of God freely poured out on all, not the gnosis of the individual only attainable by a few.

James

When worded like that i would agree with your assessment.

Although, i'm not sure if you knew this already, several Gnostic sects believed in reincarnation, so that those who were not among the few in one life may be in the next - so that eventually all people would find gnosis and return to God. Everyone still gets saved (that's actually one of the big concepts behind the Sophia mythos) it's just more a process of betterment, rather than a gift.
EDIT: Distillation would be a good analogy, distilling out the divine particles from the world through the slow process of individual enlightenment.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In Gnosticism, salvation is achieved through Gnosis. Not everyone can achieve this and hence those that do constitute an elite, whether one that is innately superior or superior by dint of what they have achieved is irrelevant. In contrast, in Orthodoxy there is no elite, salvation is free to all, no special knowledge is required and, in fact, everyone is already saved by the Incarnation (though they also must work on themselves). In other words salvation depends on the grace of God freely poured out on all, not the gnosis of the individual only attainable by a few.

James

James,

There are, however, Gnostic documents that express an explicit dependence on the grace of God (Gospel of Philip) and lack the salvation through knowledge (Gospel of Thomas) and yet both of these documents have a complex Gnostic cosmology.

Puzzeling.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here are some quotations to consider:

Apocryphon of John:
"Now up to the present day, sexual intercourse continued due to the chief archon. And he planted sexual desire in her who belongs to Adam. And he produced through intercourse the copies of the bodies, and he inspired them with his counterfeit spirit."

Here we see that harm in the world comes from the creator god - because of an imperfect creation, there is male and female who need to unite sexually. I think that this cosmology explicitly follows Plato's Timaeus, where androgyny is the ideal, and males and females need to have sex in order to stay healthy and ragain the ideal androgyny. It's not divine knowledge that saves, but a cosmic reunification of male and female.

"And the two archons he set over principalities, so that they might rule over the tomb. And when Adam recognized the likeness of his own foreknowledge, he begot the likeness of the son of man. He called him Seth, according to the way of the race in the aeons. Likewise, the mother also sent down her spirit, which is in her likeness and a copy of those who are in the pleroma, for she will prepare a dwelling place for the aeons which will come down. And he made them drink water of forgetfulness, from the chief archon, in order that they might not know from where they came. Thus, the seed remained for a while assisting (him), in order that, when the Spirit comes forth from the holy aeons, he may raise up and heal him from the deficiency, that the whole pleroma may (again) become holy and faultless."

Apparently this is the evil or ignorant creator god who made humanity drink of forgetfulness so that humanity would forget the circumstances of creation.

And I said to the savior, "Lord, will all the souls then be brought safely into the pure light?" He answered and said to me, "Great things have arisen in your mind, for it is difficult to explain them to others except to those who are from the immovable race. Those on whom the Spirit of life will descend and (with whom) he will be with the power, they will be saved and become perfect and be worthy of the greatness and be purified in that place from all wickedness and the involvements in evil. Then they have no other care than the incorruption alone, to which they direct their attention from here on, without anger or envy or jealousy or desire and greed of anything. They are not affected by anything except the state of being in the flesh alone, which they bear while looking expectantly for the time when they will be met by the receivers (of the body). Such then are worthy of the imperishable, eternal life and the calling. For they endure everything and bear up under everything, that they may finish the good fight and inherit eternal life."

Here we see that some are called - an elitism and ethic. The knowledge does not come from the self but from the Spirit who calls and saves - and the person has to adopt an ethic.

I said to him, "Lord, the souls of those who did not do these works (but) on whom the power and Spirit descended, (will they be rejected?" He answered and said to me, "If) the Spirit (descended upon them), they will in any case be saved, and they will change (for the better). For the power will descend on every man, for without it no one can stand. And after they are born, then, when the Spirit of life increases and the power comes and strengthens that soul, no one can lead it astray with works of evil. But those on whom the counterfeit spirit descends are drawn by him and they go astray."

Here is the extent of the Spirit's grace: the Spirit will save those on whom it descends, even if they do not have the ethic. This heresy is adopted by many Protestant groups and completely foreign to orthodox bishops who taught that one must have the ethic in order to be acceptable to God.We should note that the orthodox are more elite than this Gnostic text in this regard - even people who don't keep the ethic are saved rather than only those that do.

And I said, "Lord, where will the souls of these go when they have come out of their flesh?" And he smiled and said to me, "The soul in which the power will become stronger than the counterfeit spirit, is strong and it flees from evil and, through the intervention of the incorruptible one, it is saved, and it is taken up to the rest of the aeons."

And I said, "Lord, those, however, who have not known to whom they belong, where will their souls be?" And he said to me, "In those, the despicable spirit has gained strength when they went astray. And he burdens the soul and draws it to the works of evil, and he casts it down into forgetfulness. And after it comes out of (the body), it is handed over to the authorities, who came into being through the archon, and they bind it with chains and cast it into prison, and consort with it until it is liberated from the forgetfulness and acquires knowledge. And if thus it becomes perfect, it is saved."

Redemption after death...

 

[yuvgotmel]

A_E,

I've noticed some of your posts lately, which seem to indicate, at least to me, that you might also be interested in this particular book:

http://www.amazon.com/Not-His-Image-Gnostic-Ecology/dp/193149892X
"Not in His Image: Gnostic Vision, Sacred Ecology, and the Future of Belief" by John Lash
​

You can also download three hours worth of a radio recording with author John Lash here:

2006-02-16 - Hour 2 - Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
Scholar and mythologist John Lash shares revelations about aliens and UFOs that he gleaned from his research of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts. — 13,870 KB
2006-02-16 - Hour 3 - Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
Scholar and mythologist John Lash shares revelations about aliens and UFOs that he gleaned from his research of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts. — 13,803 KB
2006-02-16 - Hour 4 - Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
Scholar and mythologist John Lash shares revelations about aliens and UFOs that he gleaned from his research of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts. — 12,986 KB
​

You might also be interested in this website concerning the Gnostic interpretation of the Archons (which are thought to be the equivalent of the modern-day "extraterrestrials" or what the New Testament terms "powers and principalities").

http://www.metahistory.org/AlienIntrusion.php
​

Also here is a recent news article from The Canadian National Newspaper (online) concerning Gnosticism and ETs/UFOs:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/03/21/01414.html
​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Random]

AE, you have a wife, right? I assume so.

She is a woman, and through her womb new life comes into this world, this material realm.

If you were to adopt the Gnostic worldview that matter and body are evil and the observable creation is wrought of the deeds of a diabolical god, how would you explain to her that bringing life into the world-system of the Demiurge is obscene and sinful?

I'll wager you could never convince her of that. Every woman is innocently delighted to bring life into the world, rightly.

Gnosticism reduces women to mere facilitators of an evil system beyond human control. That is its deepest flaw that I percieve, and one irreconcillable with our common humanity.

DO you have children, AE?

What suffering it would be to teach them of an evil world and make them powerless in the face of a malevolent creator.

Do you understand my point here? I think you might, you're a bright man.

Any spirituality that negates life-positivity on some level is a contagion to the true Spirit, and that is Love.

But that is only my opinion...

 

[yuvgotmel]

Gnosticism reduces women to mere facilitators of an evil system beyond human control. That is its deepest flaw that I percieve, and one irreconcillable with our common humanity.

WHOA... Stop the show!

Gnosticism extols Sophia, a female!!!

Holy moly... you are so wrong to think that Gnosticism reduces female anything!

Oh my goodness!

If you want to read more about Sophia from REAL CLASSIC GNOSTICS, here is a link:
http://www.gnostic-church.org/

I used to be a council member of this church, which is both a real church and an online gathering. The AGCA was started by a professor at a university in Virginia.

 

[Random]

WHOA... Stop the show!

Gnosticism extols Sophia, a female!!!

Holy moly... you are so wrong to think that Gnosticism reduces female anything!

Oh my goodness!

If you want to read more about Sophia from REAL CLASSIC GNOSTICS, here is a link:
http://www.gnostic-church.org/

I used to be a council member of this church, which is both a real church and an online gathering. The AGCA was started by a professor at a university in Virginia.

I am aware of the Sophia aspect. It does not change the implications of Gnostic beliefs if examined thoroughly with the intellect.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Perhaps even more important than the mystery cults for the development of Christianity is the movement known as Gnosticism. This built largely on the mystery cults, but divested them entirely of their local affiliations. Gnosticism was a religion not about a god of Phrygia, or Syria, or Egypt, but about planet earth and its place in the universe as an outlying region occupied by the evil force struggling against the power of good (in describing Gnosticism, it is almost impossible to avoid the language of science-fiction, which indeed is partly given over to a modern form of Gnosticism).

To some extent Gnosticism arose also out of Judaism, from which it derived part of its cosmic scope, but here too it shed the local colouring and nationalist rootedness of Judaism, thus becoming the perfect expression of alienation in the Hellenistic world. From the mystery religions it took the idea of salvation through the death and resurrection of a god, but the sexual significances of salvation, still strongly retained in the mystery cults in male-female themes, were again mad abstract. The entity to be saved (the soul) was regarded as sexless, and the aim of religion was to achieve this sexless state. As a consequence of this desexualization, the paranoia of good and evil became central, and the discerning of evil forces, both on earth and in the heavens, became an urgent preoccupation. Where the mystery religions had vaguely adumbrated evil god responsible for the death of the young god, Gnosticism focused its anguished attention on the cosmic evil which if became the main to escape or overcome. Zoroastrianism had previously regarded life as a struggle between cosmic good and evil, but not in terms that put the earth and its activities on the side of evil.

There have been great fluctuations in the opinions of scholars on the history of Gnosticism. The traditional Christian view was that this movement was an offshoot of Christianity, and was in fact a Christian heresy, founded originally by Simon Magus. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries scholars such as Reizenstein and, later, Bultmann took the view that Gnosticism actually began before Christianity, and that it had a strong influence on Christianity itself, especially in the formation of the view of Jesus found in the Epistles of Paul and in the Gospel of John. Then came a phase in which the view of Bultmann was discounted as without sufficient historical basis, and it became scholarly orthodoxy once more to regard Gnosticism as merely an eccentric variant of Christianity. Quite recently, however, new light has been thrown on Gnosticism by the discovery of a great library of Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi, in Upper Egypt. These are Coptic translations of Greek original, and are still being studied by an army of scholars. But one striking fact that has emerged is that some of these texts are Gnostic without being Christian. Consequently, it has become once more probably that Gnosticism preceded Christianity and was an important influence on it.

Of the non-Christian Gnostic texts recently found at Nag Hammadi there were two main kinds: the pagan ones, without reference to either Judaism or Christianity, and the ‘Jewish’ ones, which contain much reference to Judaism, but none to Christianity. It would be more accurate, however, to call these latter texts ‘anti-Jewish’ rather than Jewish. Their wealth of references to Judaism has caused scholars to regard them as having been written by Jewish sectarians; but their uniformly hostile attitude towards Judaism as a limited or even evil religion makes it more likely that these texts were written by non-Jews who had come into contact with Judaism and were both fascinated and repelled by it; or perhaps an even more accurate description of their standpoint is that they wished to build their religious views on Judaism and at the same time repudiate it. Thus they selected from the Bible the figure of Seth for special reverence, because he was not a Jew but a figure of the antediluvian period before Judaism began (in exactly the same way, and for the same reason, we find in the New Testament special reverence paid to the figure of Melchizedek). The sources of Judaism are used, with great ingenuity, to attack Judaism and develop a religious system transcending, yet in a way incorporating, the tenets of the Jewish Bible.

The peculiar combination of dependence on Jewish sources and hostility towards them is shown especially in the Gnostic attitude towards Jehovah, the God of Judaism. It was acknowledged by the Gnostics that there was such a God and that He was the author of the Old Testament, which He had transmitted to Moses. It was even admitted by some that He had created the earth. But it was denied that He was the supreme God, or that His handiwork was admirable, in either its literary form, the Torah, or its material form, the world. Far above Him was the true ‘Highest God’, to whom He failed to give due reverence, pretending to be the Highest God himself. But there had always been some, starting with Seth, who had seen through His pretensions, and had true knowledge (gnosis) of the Highest God. These people knew that one day the Highest God would intervene in the affairs of the Jewish God, by sending down a son, who, by his death and resurrection, would overthrow the Jewish God, rescind the latter’s imperfect Law, and rescue chosen souls for eternal life.

It is doubtful, however, whether Gnosticism itself contained the concept of sacrifice in the sense that is important for the present study. There was certainly in Gnosticism, even in its pre-Christian varieties, the figure of a saviour called the ‘Son of God’, who descended from the ‘World of Light’ and later ascended again. But the accent was laid on the knowledge or esoteric information that he brought to the world, rather than on his suffering while on earth. If he was temporarily overwhelmed by evil powers, this was the inevitable result of his selfless descent rather than the main aim of his mission; it was not his death that brought salvation, but the knowledge, or gnosis, that he imparted to his disciples while on earth, and which they transmitted to further disciples.

“The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, p.106~120
​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AE, you have a wife, right? I assume so.

She is a woman, and through her womb new life comes into this world, this material realm.

If you were to adopt the Gnostic worldview that matter and body are evil and the observable creation is wrought of the deeds of a diabolical god, how would you explain to her that bringing life into the world-system of the Demiurge is obscene and sinful?

I'll wager you could never convince her of that. Every woman is innocently delighted to bring life into the world, rightly.

Gnosticism reduces women to mere facilitators of an evil system beyond human control. That is its deepest flaw that I percieve, and one irreconcillable with our common humanity.

DO you have children, AE?

What suffering it would be to teach them of an evil world and make them powerless in the face of a malevolent creator.

Do you understand my point here? I think you might, you're a bright man.

Any spirituality that negates life-positivity on some level is a contagion to the true Spirit, and that is Love.

But that is only my opinion...

You have a point, Random.

I appreciate - and can relate to a great extent - the Gnostic idea that the creator God is evil. It places all of the responsibility on the ignorant god for all of the suffering in the world. Humans obviously are frail and weak - and we are miserable simply because we don't have the power to save ourselves from anything significant. I see in Gnosticism a healthy hatred for the divine - and at the same time an optimistic hope for Another divine that has promised to gift humanity with good things.

Furthermore, I am shocked at the unsually high regard for the female in Gnosticism - it's the highest regard for the feminine that I've seen in the ancient world, and I've read a lot.

It is the unity of male and female that is the ideal in Gnosticism, and not the bearing of children - at least, I have not seen that emphasized.

I don't plan on becoming a misanthopist despite my appreciation for the hatred of expressions of divine or human hatred - there's evil in the world, and both of us serve as viable scrapegoats.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Furthermore, I am shocked at the unsually high regard for the female in Gnosticism - it's the highest regard for the feminine that I've seen in the ancient world, and I've read a lot.

You know the Shekinah is a female too.

Here is a cut and pasted excerpt of something that I wrote about Sophia, the Shekinah, and Wisdom (of the Sephirot). [By the way, Sophia equates as Wisdom, as you have probably noticed in your research.]

Firstly, it was this past summer of 2006 when I began to investigate the Hebrew understanding of “Wisdom,” especially following the writings which are attributed to Solomon in the “old testament.” To be sure and accurate, on August 16, 2006, I contacted a Rabbi Shlomo, via www.askmoses.com, in order to inquire about the Hebrew word for “Wisdom” as it pertains to the following verses:

Proverbs 1:20:
“Wisdom cries aloud in the streets,
Raises her voice in the squares.”

Proverbs 8:1:
“It is Wisdom calling,
Understanding raising her voice.”
​

At that time, I was told that, in the Hebrew, Proverbs 1:20 uses the plural word for wisdom “Chochmot.” And in verse 8:1, in the Hebrew, the singular form is used: “Chochmah.” Additionally, and just as I had suspected and the verses from Proverbs imply, the rabbi told me that both words are feminine in their Hebrew versions.

Noticeably the scripture from Proverbs 8:1 seems to allude to “Understanding” (Binah) being feminine, as it reads: “Understanding raising her voice,” which concurs with the teachings of “The New Hermetics” and other popular commentary, such as Israel Regardie’s book on “The Tree of Life,” where from pages 49 through 52, the author attributes “Wisdom” (Chokmah) to a masculine form. And subsequently then, “Understanding” (Binah), he wrote, is given to a feminine form. And as he explains later on in his Endnotes to the same chapter, “Qabalists have been known to disagree on ‘gender’ of the various Sephiroth.”

In opposition to Netzach as the second Sephirah of the third triad is Hod, the “Splendor” or “Glory,” which is the feminine quality repeating the characteristics of Chokmah although on a plane less exalted and sublime.24

“The Tree of Life: An Illustrated Study in Magic” by Israel Regardie, page 55

24. Qabalists have been known to disagree on the “gender” of the various Sephiroth, ascribing masculine or feminine attributes to each Sephirah. It should be remembered that each Sephirah is an abstraction that contains certain aspects which are characteristic of both sexual polarities. No one Sephirah is simply all masculine or all feminine.

From the “Endnotes” to Chapter Three: The Qabalah, page 68
​

Yet, it does not change the fact that the Hebrew word for “wisdom” is “Chochmah” (singular form—as seen on the Sephirot) and “Chochmot” (plural form). Furthermore, the Hebrew and other Arabic religious teachings are as such that they attribute the “Holy Spirit” and “Wisdom” to the feminine gender, much in the same way Gnostics view “Sophia” as the highest form of “Gnosis.”

King Solomon, as legend tells, sought after Wisdom with the same vigor, if not more so, than he did in seeking and gaining approximately 1,000 wives and concubines. The writings attributed to the virile king are filled with exhortations to “Wisdom,” whom he describes a relationship with, in quite erotic language, in the Song of Songs. To be accurate, though, the Song of Songs does not use the word “wisdom” specifically therein, at least in the common English translations. However, it is taught among both Christian and Jewish mystics that the author was explaining the supernal union (i.e. the Bridal Chamber). Though the Christian mystics believe the “Holy Spirit” to be masculine—in accordance with previous Hellenistic religions, which ascribed the pneuma to a masculine gender—, the Jewish mystics (and other Arabic cultures) believe the “Holy Spirit” (i.e. Ruach HaKodesh or Shekinah) to be feminine. Perhaps it is the ancient interpretations based upon regional differences from where the discrepancy originates in the manner of gender assignments within the Sephirot.
​