Sacred Androgyny:

Examining the androgynous archetype in sacred literature

and its influence on contemporary culture

by
Sakenya McDonald

Thesis
Submitted to the Department of English Language and Literature
Southern New Hampshire University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
BACHELOR OF ARTS
in
English Language and Literature

Thesis Advisor:
Alice L. (Aley) Martin BS, MLA, MA, CAGS

December 11, 2016

 i

Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to the perfected androgyny that represents all that I am: J & S.
There is no error in you.
 ii

Acknowledgments
Extending my heartfelt gratitude to Alice (Aley) Martin, for the tireless dedication you’ve shown

and the constant support and encouragement, I thank you. To my very supportive and

understanding mentor, Rev. Kevin Lawson, thank you for always listening and providing gentle

reassurance and the quiet solidarity that reminded me I was not in this alone. To my parents,

Charles and Sandra, to say thank-you will never be enough, my gratitude is eternally in my heart

and always on my mind, for your unwavering attention to me, my health, and my being I am

forever humbled. To my advisor, Typhany Sellers, who has taken many a rant-filled phone call

and email with professionalism, class, and understanding, please know that you are appreciated.

And to the love of my life, some secrets are worth keeping and some are worth telling: you’ve

given me the courage to share this secret with the world, you’ve empowered me to be bold,

unabashedly beautiful, and unashamed.

There will always be us.

 iii

Abstract

This thesis will examine the representation of the androgynous archetype in sacred or religious

literature. I will introduce the audience to the origins of literature, specifically within the sacred

contexts, and define the praxis of identifying archetypal forms in literature. I will also define the

various representations of the androgynous form in sacred texts, and using Structuralist and

Feminist Criticism will critique two ancient manuscripts The Pistis Sophia and The Gospel of

Mary Magdalene. I will then conclude analysis with supporting evidence as to why the

androgynous archetype is often omitted or ignored in the teaching of sacred literature and how

this impacts contemporary society, specifically marginalized populations such as LGBTQ

persons.

In conclusion, this paper will introduce the androgynous archetype, its representation is sacred

literature, ways in which it has been neglected in the context of literary critique, and why it must

be expounded upon more in contemporary literature and society.

 iv

Table of Contents
Dedication……………………………………………..…………..……………………......…......i
Acknowledgments…………………………………………..…………………………………....ii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………….....……………… iii
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………...iv
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….....1
Defining Sacred Literature………………………………………………………………………..2
Understanding the Androgynous Archetype……………………………………..…………….....5
Structuralist and Feminist Criticism………………………………………………….………… 19
Analysis of The Gospel of Mary Magdalene…………………………………………………… 23
Analysis of The Pistis Sophia………………………………………………………….……..… 29
Contemporary Culture and the Androgynous Archetype………………………………………..34
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….…42
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………...44
 1

INTRODUCTION

The Aztecs tell a creation story. It is the story of the supreme god, Ometeotl. This great

being was the originator of all things, powerful beyond measure, and exceeding human

comprehension. Ometeotl was a nonoppositional deity and described by the Aztecs as a supreme

androgynous entity, one possessing both masculine and feminine aspects. Due to this duality,

Ometeotl could “beget other beings and the universe from his/her own essence” (Solomon &

Higgins 71). The Aztecs lovingly and respectfully referred to Ometeotl as “our mother, our

father” (Solomon & Higgins 71). The story of Ometeotl is a sacred one, passed down through

generations via storytelling, painted and carved images, and transcription. This androgynous

being became a prominent symbol in Mesoamerican civilization, a nod to the need for balance

and inclusivity as a catalyst for creativity, change, and creation. Across many continents, the

Aztec story wove its way into different cultures, influencing and being influenced by the idea of

the positive and negative effects that spring from balance and imbalance. Thus, these ideas and

concepts have become imbedded in the sacred texts of these cultures imparting wisdom and truth

to scholars for centuries.

As a foundation for belief, the concept of androgyny has permeated literature for

centuries, appearing in different context but always with one central theme: embracing the

opposite aspect as a way of embracing change, eliminating conflict, and defining identity. The

masculine and feminine aspects can be found in nature and are universal principles often

disguising themselves as other conflicting, but complimentary aspects, such as darkness and

light, good and bad, old and young, etc. In sacred literature, androgynous deities include The

Tao, Ometoetl, Atman, The Great Spirit, and “The Tree of Life through which the divine is seen

by Kabbalists has masculine, feminine, and neuter/androgynous pillars” (Harper). Additionally,

“Androgynous deities may represent balance, union, harmony, and resolution of all dichotomies”
 2

(Harper), and accordingly introduce archetypes, or meaningful reoccurring symbols, into sacred

literature. These androgynous archetypes are essential since they give the reader a way of

identifying key structures in literature that then define the reader’s experience. As an archetypal

presence, androgyny in sacred texts provides a deeper and richer meaning to the meaning of text,

and allows for a more universal translation which is critical when dissecting various sacred texts

as the androgynous establishes the shared human experience.

DEFINING SACRED LITERATURE

The importance of literature extends beyond the boundaries of the aesthetic or creative.

The tradition of continuing narration transformed into the skill of transcription around 3200 BCE

and originated in the Mesopotamian region of Sumer (Mark). Humanity’s earliest known written

text is believed to have come from a high priestess from the land of Ur by the name of

Enheduanna (Binkley). Enheduanna is credited as having composed hymns of praise to the

Sumerian goddess, Inanna, entitled The Exaltation of Inanna and In-nin sa-gur-ra (Binkley).

These early writings, to include other Sumerian/Akkadian literature such as The Epic of

Gilgamesh, prominently featured the activities of the gods of the time. Ancient civilizations used

stories and myths as a way to not only connect to their gods but also to teach valuable lessons or

ensure the passage of cultural traditions. These stories and myths evolved into sacred teachings

and texts but were not all inclusive in regards the worship gods or the preservation of rituals.

Despite being non-inclusive, sacred literature or sacred texts, are among the earliest

known anthropological artifacts, pieces of history that provide inclusive insight into ancient

cultures and societies. Dino S. Cervigni writes, “Historians, philosophers, anthropologist of

religion, as well as literary critics, have claimed not only a connection between literature and

religion, they have also emphasized the essential role of religion in the development of

civilization and thus of all literary artifacts” (11). The merging of religion, literature, and
 3

civilization is important to understanding what sacred literature is, and why it is important to

study and critique, even in modern times. The article, Literature, Sacred, and the Divine

mentions that it was the “common and universal” experience of all primitive societies observed

through ritual and verbal signs that spawned the inception of myth. It was the oral narration of

myth that then provided the catalyst to written word and became the subject matter of literature.

In consideration that many ancient societies, as the Sumerians, chose to write the first

known pieces of literature about a goddess, Inanna, supports this claim. Religion, or the

observance of ritual and the belief in the divine and the sacred, governed all aspects of their

lives, from how they lived and buried their dead, to artistic expression and creative notion.

Natural progression saw the expansion of this artistic creation to include dance, music, painting,

and sculpture. Literature was soon to become a part of this expansion as well, beginning with

primitive cuneiform and hieroglyphics, and eventually evolving into words, phrases, and written

texts.

The earliest known forms of sacred literature include sacred hymns, sacred poetry, and

sacred scripture. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that “most sacred scriptures were originally

oral and passed down through memorization” from generation to generation until finally being

transcribed into written texts (“Scripture: Religious Literature”). Sacred and semi-sacred texts

vary greatly and range from prayers and myths to chants and directions for the conduct of rituals.

Additionally, all sacred texts vary in authority and degree of sacredness (“Scripture: Religious

Literature”). The most authoritative texts are generally gathered into canons, or standard works

of a particular belief or faith, and some of the most prominent examples include Jewish/Hebrew

canons of The Old Testament and The Torah, the Christian canon The New Testament, and the

four Hindu Vedas. Examples of semi-sacred scripture or literature include The Apocrypha (or the
 4

gospels not include in the Christian Bible) and the Talmud. Historians also posit that some

ancient myths could be considered semi-sacred texts, such as Homer’s The Iliad, tales that are

considered as sacred as any contained in the Qur’an or Upanishads due to their distinct cultural

influence, and reference to gods/goddesses and aspects of the supernatural or divine (“Scripture:

Religious Literature”).

From these ancient texts came the inspiration for modern interpretation and continued

translation of thought into literary expression. Modern scholars such as Joseph Campbell, Carl

Jung, and Northrup Frye all draw inspiration from sacred literature and the philosophical and

religious ideology of earlier centuries. The need for the religious experience is not only a cultural

one but it is psychological one, and so in theory, sacred literature is paramount in the foundation

of any field that explores the unknown such as, science, philosophy, medicine, and some areas of

mathematics like physics or chaos theory. By examining thoroughly the ideas contained in

ancient sacred texts it is possible to connect the present to the past, and suddenly the idea of

androgyny in primitive texts provides insight into a variety of modern day cultural and societal

hot topics, such as LGBTQ issues and notion of separateness.

The primitive, yet sage, knowledge found in sacred literature is generally balked at as

being “pseudo-science” or un-quantifiable. Yet, through careful scrutiny it becomes possible to

see evidence of tangible scientific reasoning and logic in sacred texts. Cosmology and

cosmogony as a science began with sacred literature, the epic creation myth Enuma Elish being

one of the oldest creation myths, a story credited to the Babylonians. The simple reference to

phrases such as “primeval”, “chaos”, and “mingling of waters” all correspond directly with

scientific theory regarding the creation of the world. To then infer that references to divine

beings who are “nameless” or “sexless” or, like Ometoetl “dual, masculine and feminine” mean
 5

that humans are androgynous in origin is not only rational, but also practical. For these reasons,

sacred literature deserves to be interpreted and studied, dissected and discussed, and critiqued

with zeal. The presentation of the archetype in sacred texts establish a common bond, one that

transcends religious belief and ventures into the realm of the scientific. The androgynous can

cross the line from Christianity to Buddhism to Chaos Theory and Biology seamlessly. These

archetypes are only found through scrutiny, using technique and theory that eliminate the

subtleties of dogma and creed in favor of the “common and universal” theme.

UNDERSTANDING THE ANDROGYNOUS ARCHETYPE

When examining literature from the viewpoint of a literary critic, the archetype is

defined not only by its function within narrative but also by how it influences the totality of the

literary experience. The archetype is referred to as a literary device, or a tool used by writers to

“help readers to appreciate, interpret, and analyze a literary work” (“Literary Devices”). As a

literary device and when used as a tool the archetype falls into the category of a literary element,

or parts of a piece that are used by authors to develop the piece. In literature, the archetype can

be a symbol, theme, or character and always represents a naturally occurring universal pattern

(“Literary Devices”). Prominent literary critic and theorist, Northrup Frye defined the term

archetype as “a symbol, often an image, which recurs often enough in literature to be

recognizable as an element of one’s literary experience as a whole” (“Northrup Frye’s Theory of

Archetypes”). Author Stefan Stenudd writes in his article Psychoanalysis of Myth 6: Freud’s and

Jung’s Theory on Myth and Its Origin, “Archetypes create myths, religions, and philosophical

ideas that influence and set their stamp on whole nations and epochs”. In religious and sacred

texts the archetype often presents in the form of symbols or images. An example of this would be

the image of the serpent, a symbol used to represent an elements and aspects, such as evil,

cunning, wisdom, rebirth, and androgyny.

 6

The psychologist, Carl Jung, defined twelve primary sets of archetypes as being symbolic

of basic human motivations. These archetypes can be found in a variety of literary texts, since

the writing experience is a human experience. The driving factor to writing a story and using an

archetype as a literary device, or tool to create or construct that story, is the desire to give the

human mind meanings to decipher and utilize (Stenudd). The twelve archetypes as defined by

Jung are: The Caregiver, The Warrior (Hero), The Orphan, The Innocent, The Creator, The

Destroyer, The Lover, The Seeker, The Ruler, The Magician, The Sage, and The Jester (Golden).

Yet, outside of these twelve most common archetypes there exist another sphere of literary

archetypes, symbols or ideas that if plotted on a graph would eventually intersect at multiple

points to create a distinct, recognizable pattern. This pattern then repeats itself over and over

until it becomes an archetype which explains how the androgynous archetype is found not only

in secular literature but also in religious literature.

When presented in a metaphorical sense, the androgynous archetype conveys patterns of

unity, balance, inner peace, and salvation. Per the article, Androgynous Myths, “Androgynes

have a significant place in the human religious imagination”. Referencing the human imagination

indicates that in most sacred texts, the androgynous archetype is presented in a metaphorical

sense, often taking the form of a deity or symbol, deliberately inserted to invoke the imaginative

and speculative process. Through this process, the archetype becomes universal, taking on a

specific set of characteristics that cross national, ethnic, and even, religious, boundaries. For

example, in Hindi and Buddhist sacred texts, the androgynous represents a way in which “the

dualisms of the phenomenal world are transcended” (“Androgynous Myths”), made possible

through the union of opposites. Additionally, Androgynous Myths suggest that in Christian

sacred texts androgyny is synonymous with divinity, giving it the ability to transcend the
 7

material and mortal, “The writings of […] thus constitute an exegesis of Christian myths of the

Fall and redemption through Christ, myths in which androgyny becomes a crucial symbol for

wholeness or divine consciousness”. Although Hindi and Christian sacred texts vary greatly, the

universal androgynous archetype can be found in both, depicted through metaphorical and

symbolical reference that becomes a shared experience.

Once an archetype has been defined it then is easier to recognize it in texts, many times

the archetypes in sacred literature would often create an overlapping pattern with many of the

archetypes found in secular myths. To most individuals this pattern is not easily recognizable,

“In the criticism of literature, we often have to “stand back” […] to see its archetypal

organization (Frye 140). Once the skill of critiquing literature has been sufficiently acquired, the

exchange of universal notions and identifying archetypes is simplified. Consider Greek myths

and their pantheon of deities with Zeus being the god of lightening and father of humanity as an

archetypal representation of The Ruler. When presented in Hebrew lore, Zeus corresponds with

the Hebrew deity, YHWH, an all-powerful god who also serves humanity as a father figure.

In Gnostic myths, Yaldaboath is a demiurge who is born to the goddess, Sophia, in

darkness and, thinking himself alone, creates the Earth and its human inhabitants, usually in the

same manner that Zeus and YHWH constructed humanity from clay and dust, respectably.

However, the stories of Zeus, YHWH, and Yaldaboath are often critiqued and examined using

different lenses with Zeus and Yaldaboath being categorized as myths and the story of YHWH as

sacred literature or religious text. This lens is often not wide enough to capture the full frame and

so in literature, the connection between archetypes represented in myth (which can also

constitute sacred literature) and religious literature is often missed. When the connection is

missed, archetypes defined as the androgynous often become obscure, overshadowed by

 8

archetypes such as The Ruler or The Journey while, in fact, defining these more prominent

archetypes.

Androgyny is enigmatic and can be elusive to spot in when presented in the literature for

several reasons: the definition of androgyny is not clear to the reader, the symbol or image may

not be in written form (particularly when presented in ancient sacred texts), and patriarchal

systems have obscured the representation of the dual divine being or aspect to advance an

archaic system. However, once these hurdles have been transcended the androgynous archetype

boldly comes forward. The use of metaphors, symbols, and images in sacred texts become

purposeful and demonstrative of the androgynous archetypes universal themes. The androgynous

fits the model used in archetypal criticism which argues that “archetypes determine the form and

function of literary works, that a text’s meaning is shaped by cultural and psychological myths”

(Delahoyde). By giving meaning to sacred and religious texts, the androgynous shapes the text

into a cohesive passage whereby the reader can identify the intended message either on a

physical, spiritual, or emotional level.

To understand how this shaping is done and what message is formulated in the mind of

the reader, the word androgyny must first be defined. Without a precise definition of

androgynous (or androgyny), it is impossible to substantiate the claim that the archetype presents

in sacred texts in a variety of ways and with different themes based on the reader’s experience

and the collective’s response to the texts. Per Tracy Hargreaves’ novel, Androgyny in modern

literature:

The meaning of androgyny depends on its function in a given discourse. It can

appear in many forms: a sensibility, a pathology, as symptomatic of a repressed

desire (as Freud argued in his psychanalytic biography of Leonardo da Vinci), the
 9

embodiment of an identity defined through usually same-sex sexual orientation

and/or cross-gender identification, an emblem (or fantasy) of a behavior where

positive traits, identified as masculine and feminine, work harmoniously in a

single individual. (13)

By its broad definition, it becomes easy to see how the androgynous archetype can often be

misunderstood or mistranslated and thereby, undervalued as a legitimate archetype in literature.

The most prominent definition of androgyny often relates to the latter part of Hargreaves

definition, specifically, the harmonious blending of masculine and feminine traits. This blending

can manifest in the physical form, an androgyne is a person who often exhibits both masculine

and feminine defining features, i.e., males with softer features and longer hair or females with

broader shoulder or smaller breasts who also still retain a measure of femininity.

Inclusive of the physical representation of androgyny, which has been presented in

religious and non-religious literature, such as F. Scott’s Fitzgerald’s description of Jordan Baker,

“She was a slender, small-breasted girl, with an erect carriage which she accentuated by

throwing her body backwards at the shoulders like a young cadet” (58) there lies the notation of

physical characteristics of androgyny in sacred literature. Examples include the descriptions of

androgynous angels such as Gabriel, the messenger angel of the Hebrew God mentioned in The

Bible. The Jewish sacred texts The Zohar states, “Angels […] turn themselves into different

shapes, being sometimes female and sometimes male (qtd in Cancelli 35). In the sacred scrolls of

Greek myths, Zeus fell in love with Ganymede, a young male of whom Homer wrote,

“[Ganymedes] was the loveliest born of the race of mortals” (qtd in Ganymede) which would

indicate he was masculine in appearance (so as the be identified as belonging to the male gender)

but beautiful enough to capture the attention of the gods and earn immortality. Lastly, the Hindu
 10

sacred text The Mahabharata tells the story of the androgynous god Ardhanarishwara, “the Lord

whose half is woman” (Kalkinath), a god who manifested the signs of both sexes (signs being

reference to sexual organs) who could create the world due to its androgynous appearance.

Other physical representations of the androgynous include the Greek god

Hermaphroditos, son of Hermes and Aphrodite (“Hermaphroditos”) or Baphomet, The Goat of

Mendes, a figure that is comprised of several different body parts: the head of a goat, wings of an

angel, breast of a woman, male genitalia (penis), and the hoofs of a horse or goat. This symbol is

used amongst certain Masonic orders, Satanic and Luciferian sects, and even The Knights

Templar to represent a powerful and androgynous being (“The Shocking True History of

Baphomet”). Daniel Appel writes that Aleister Crowley “described Baphomet as a divine

androgyne, representative of mystical perfection through the union of opposites” and that Satan’s

image is Baphomet, “the Androgyne who is the hieroglyphic of arcane perfection” (“The

Shocking True History of Baphomet”). As a symbol or illustration, Baphomet has been

connected to Egyptian mythology, Renaissance and Medieval Magic, and mystic and esoteric

texts.

Moving beyond the realm of physical appearance and the presentation of dual masculine

and feminine features in a single entity, androgyny is also defined as a psychological, emotional,

or mental state of being. Essentially, an individual can possess the outward appearance of one

gender but embrace the opposite (or both) genders in thought or inner consciousness. To

illustrate, one of the most misunderstood sacred verses is found in the apocryphal Gospel of

Thomas, verse 114 “Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy

of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become

a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will
 11

enter the kingdom of heaven” (The Gospel of Thomas 114). For many years, this scripture and

it’s suggested context was rejected by orthodox Christianity and may explain why the Gospel of

Thomas was not canonized into the Christian Bible. The idea of Mary Magdalene literally

transforming into a male was heretical and incomprehensible. However, through considerable

interpretation of this passage, new meaning has emerged surrounding what this passage might

have implied, not only followers of Jesus during the first century BCE, but also in regards to how

sacred texts defines androgyny in a way that is applicable and relevant to in modern times.

In the article, Making Oneself Male, author and spiritualist Sunfell critiques the passage

found in The Gospel of Thomas by translating the metaphorical references Jesus intended his

audiences to decipher. Sunfell writes that the process of making oneself male for women implies:

to lay aside the chains that bind us to the demands, delusions, and desires of men. We

must understand that all the weaknesses men accuse us of harboring are also their own. It

is to realize that we are also are humans, with a soul, and the same yearning as the men to

return to the Ultimate from whom we came (“Making Oneself Male”).

This emotional state of awareness can only be obtained by recognizing the connection between

the masculine and feminine and internalizing the connection. It is not defined here by the

outward appearance but rather, Jesus is speaking about Mary’s emotional, mental, or

psychological state of being; her ability to reconcile her feminine aspects with her masculine

ones, something that the apostles such as Peter would not understand due to their

underdeveloped comprehension of spiritual matters.

Gleaming from this text, modern psychologists have defined androgyny as being a

healthy and beneficial acceptance of humanity’s true nature. One of the most prominent

psychologist to work in the area of the androgynous archetype, who also happened to be a
 12

spiritualist, was Carl Jung. According to a brief biography on his life written by Charles Cowgil,

“His work has been influential not only in psychology, but in religion and literature as well.”

Carl Jung’s work as a psychiatrist and subject matter expert in the areas of analytic psychology is

unparalleled and his work focused on dissected the various aspects of the self, such as the

shadow self of which he writes, “Anyone who sees himself from his shadow and his light

simultaneously sees himself from two sides and thus gets in the middle” (Raffa). As such Jung

combined his study of sacred literature and the psychoanalytic and presented a theory that

explains how the androgynous is defined in religion, literature, and culture.

One of Jung’s theories was the notion of the animus/anima. The idea of the anima/animus

is profound in that it the anima is the unconscious feminine and the animus, the unconscious

masculine (Audlin). Biological gender differences set aside, Jung’s idea was that each person

possesses an unconscious opposite, for a female it is the animus and for the male it is the anima.

When an individual is cut off or unable to recognize their unconscious “other half”, a person

becomes disconnected from their truly divine self, the self made in the image of both the

masculine and feminine. This disconnect creates a state of spiritual slumber from which an

individual must be awakened either spiritual or psychologically.

Carl Jung’s idea of the animus/anima can be cross-referenced to the text in the Bible

book of Genesis. James David Audlin’s article, Making Mary Male: Is Gospel of Thomas 114

Really Misogynist, identifies key terminology that supports Jung’s claims that androgyny is the

natural psychological state of being. Audlin argues that the Hebrew word for “rib” that is found

in the bible books of John and Genesis are similar. In Genesis, Eve came forth from the rib while

Adam slept and in John, Jesus was pierced in the rib (Audlin). This act of “creating Eve” was

essentially done by removing from Adam the feminine element to create a separate being. After
 13

this act, both Adam and Eve were unable to see themselves as one but rather came to think of

themselves as two separate entities.

The removing of Eve from Adam is what Jung believes to signify the unconscious

disconnect of the masculine and feminine, since Adam was symbolically asleep or unconscious

during and after the separation. Concerning the passage in John, Audlin writes, “Jesus in that

moment died, just as God put a “deep sleep” on Adam, and that the soldier’s death thrust was the

beginning of God’s spiritual surgery, putting Eve back into Adam, Mary back into Jesus, female

back into male, and restoring the original hermaphroditic human whose nature is in the image of

Elohim, God understood as male and female as one” (3). Likewise, unless someone experiences

“spiritual surgery” to repair the separation, they will remain in a state of spiritual slumber. The

metaphorical usage of the rib as a symbol of androgyny indicates the elusiveness how the

androgynous presents in sacred literature but also how that representation transcends sacred

literature and how symbols are used to define the androgynous archetype in many ways.

Another way in which examples of androgyny can be found in literature is through the

concept of duality, most commonly presented in aspects of conflict i.e., light vs. dark, old vs.

young, or truth vs. lie. This is important to note because when androgyny is the recognition of

duality (most often male and female), and when conflict exists, it provides the struggle that is

indicative of the emergence of an archetype. The conflict becomes like the quest undertaken by

the Hero archetype, in which contrasting natures are presented as being at odds with one another

with reconciliation coming through cognition of self, the acceptance and yielding to struggle, or

forgiveness.

For example, a powerful argument can be made that the Israelite god, YHWH, is at times

the manifestation of the conflict that naturally occurs in duality. Humankind was created in the
 14

likeness or image of YHWH as illustrated by the passage from Genesis, “Let us make man in our

image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). This passages indicates at the most simplistic level

that, in translation, the Hebrew god created man and woman in the likeness of ‘us’ and this is

suggestive of more than one being. While YHWH is described throughout the Torah and Old

Testament as a masculine/male aspect, often referring to the nation of Israel as either a “bride”

(female) or “whore” (female), Jewish theology identifies a feminine aspect of the divine known

as the Shekinah. Shekinah means, “The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has

descended to "dwell" among men” but the manifestation is often considered by Jewish scholars

as being the feminine aspect of YHWH (Kohler & Blau). James David Audlin also observes, “a

presence of God that was in time understood as the feminine aspect of God, the Shekhina”. This

is important to note because when critiquing texts of the Old Testament many translations only

show a one-sided version of YHWH, an authoritarian patriarch who issues commands that

further obliviate any potential for an androgynous Hebrew deity.

The deity, YHWH, once removed from his consort rages throughout the Old Testament

as an overlord of strict rules, harsh judgments, and inflexibility. Since the Shekinah does not

appear in any Jewish sacred texts, scribes and theologians of the earliest centuries only present

one aspect of YHWH, the masculine aspect, which in turn leads to the dominance of patriarchy

within Western and Judaic religions. Author Leonard Shlain, author of The Alphabet Versus The

Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image, has examined extensively the concept of

duality. Duality as the equal of androgyny has existed since the beginning of recorded word and

Shlain considers the cataclysmic effects of dual states fighting one another, either

metaphorically, symbolically, or spiritual.

 15

In his work, Shlain theorizes that failure to recognize the need for different,

complimentary structures to work together harmoniously can be devastating. Like the example of

YHWH and The Shekinah, Shlain evaluates the relationship between the Hebrews and other

nations during ancient times. Regarding the exclusion of the divine feminine aspect Shlain

writes, “Each monotheistic religion features an imageless Father deity whose authority shines

through His revealed Word, sanctified in its written form” (7). The Great Goddess, once revered

in ancient religions is separated from the Great God and loses her power and status as an equal

deity to the masculine, as Shlain observes, “Her consort, once weak and inconsequential, rapidly

gained size, stature, and power, until eventually he usurped her sovereignty” (6). This shift of

power corresponds to the division of masculine from feminine, instead of striving to rule

together as equals in might and majesty, the masculine form overtook the feminine form and

raged through the pages of sacred literature, solidifying itself as the only true god and instituting

the need for reconciliation between the two aspects.

Furthermore, in the Hebrew bible YHWH instructs the prophet Moses to issue a set of

laws/commandments that must be followed by the Israelites as they fled Egypt. The first

commandment, “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is, according

to Shlain, “the exclusion of any female presence” and thereby “the most radical sentence ever

written” (82). This commandment provides a stark contrast to the creator spirit in Genesis which

was “us” and in striking the plural into the singular, the androgynous being is split. As Shlain

further states, “The meta-message of the Commandment is, “I am the only deity. I am a man, and

I do not have nor do I need a wife or consort” (82). The androgynous archetype that was so

defined in Genesis has entered the stage of the archetypal quest known as “separation from the

masculine” based on the adapted version of Maureen Murdock’s “The Heroine Journey”
 16

(“Heroine’s Journey I”). The following commandments issued by YHWH further solidified the

separation, such as the instructions to “reject all images” or “make no images”, which Shlain

argues was in direct opposition to the feminine dominate Image (with the masculine being

Word). This ban was a prohibitive action placed upon the right-brain pattern, the side that

regulates imagery and creativity (Shlain). By limited all communications to written “Word”, the

Israelites neglected their innate desire to create and express through other means, and Shlain

speculates that something as minor as this, lead to great distress between neighboring nations

(Shlain).

Delving deeper into division of the androgynous archetype as represented in sacred

literature, Shlain observes that use of images and idols dominated matriarchal societies, such as

the Assyrians, Sumerians, and Canaanites (Shlain). These groups were natural enemies of the

Israelites because not only did they honor the right-brain need for creativity, but they honored the

Great Mother Spirit, or the feminine aspect of the divine. The Israelites restricted their sacred

texts and written word to only include the divine in the form of the masculine, and nations such

as the Phoenicians, who worshiped Astarte’ and her masculine counterpart Ba’al or the

Canaanites who revered Asherah and her consort El, were considered “whores” or unfaithful to

the Hebrew god, YHWH (Shlain). By excluding the feminine from their sacred texts, the

Israelites spawned a patriarchal society that, due to its refusal to incorporate the feminine aspect

of the divine, is incomplete.

In examining sacred literature for examples of how androgyny is represented it is

possible to find examples of physical likeness such as angels who have features that are both

masculine or feminine and/or so ambiguous that it becomes impossible to determine one clear

gender, and also examples of psychological, emotional, or mental androgyny such as the mental
 17

preparation Mary Magdalene undertook in become an apostle of the prophet and teacher, Jesus.

In the Old Testament manuscripts, the Hebrew deity YHWH is depicted as a creator being that

suggests an androgynous state and as a singular god with “no wife or consort” that consistently

instructs the Israelites to conflict with surrounding nations and neglect the much-needed

inclusion of the Image (feminine) into their worship. Lastly, the androgynous archetype can be

found in yet another form when placed in religious texts. In many Asian cultures, androgyny is

not presented through image or symbol nor is it depicted through the revelation of opposites.

Rather, it presents as a spiritual or mystical concept.

In the Buddhist tradition, the principal of emptiness is foundational to the belief structure

and discussed in great details in multiple sacred texts. Author Toby Johnson Ph.D., in his article

Techniques of the World’s Saviors: Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, writes that the spirit of

androgyny represents emptiness, “samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara, there are no exclusive

categories”. The emptiness is what allows an individual to “overcome the tendency of the mind

to differentiate and value before one can conceive the unity of life” (Johnson). As a universal

concept, this form of androgyny is shared between Buddhist and Chinese sacred texts and myths,

Japanese legend, and the Taoist principle of The Tao, a nameless, sexless energy that simply

exists. The teachings of the Persian teacher Mani also describe the androgynous as principals or

aspects, Light and Dark respectively. According to Mani, the principles of Light manifests as

order, intelligence, and spirituality whereas the principles of Dark are chaotic, material, and

disorderly (Solomon & Higgins). Manichaeism as a religious philosophy gives great weight to

these principles and the androgynous archetype is found not only in the sacred literary texts but

also in verbal teachings of Mani, the androgynous as principles becomes the foundation of

Manichaeism.
 18

As a foundational element, the androgynous archetype has also interwoven itself into the

sacred customs and traditions of many cultures. Examining the Aboriginal culture of Australia is

a good example of how a symbol of androgyny, in this case, the serpent, has inspired their

spirituality. The Australian Government’s website, www.australia.gov.au, provides visitors to

their country with an in-depth look into the beliefs and customs of Aboriginal people. The

informational reading indicates that the Rainbow Serpent is quite possibly the oldest held

religious belief in the country. The Rainbow Serpent displays characteristics that are consistent

with androgyny. For example, it is often described as both a creative and destructive force. It is

called by many different names and in some tribes is referred to as a male and in other tribes it is

a female. To the Gagudju people the serpent was called Almudj and was both a creator being and

a male. In the Aboriginal culture, sacred literature often takes the form of art with images of the

Rainbow Serpent dating back to as early as 8000 BCE (Tacon, Wilson & Chippendale). This is

important because as a culture, to transcribe sacred thoughts through drawings or symbols

translates to words and letters used in other cultures. The art becomes the sacred text, telling

stories and preserving tradition. And in doing so, the story of the Rainbow Serpent becomes the

cornerstone of these sacred images, crossing from tribe to tribe and lasting thousands of years

and even influencing Western and modern art.

Symbols, metaphors, mentalities, and aspects of duality are all forms that are

representative of the androgynous archetype. Knowing this is necessary because it provides the

structure by which critics, theologians, authors, historians, and theorist can scour the pages of

ancient manuscripts looking for the singular connecting thread. The word archetype has already

been defined as a “recurring symbol or image” that can be found in literature. From the

viewpoint of the literary critic, however, one of the most important characteristics of the
 19

archetype is “universal pattern” that is established by the archetype. In the case of the

androgynous archetype, this pattern revolves around separation and reconciliation, duality of

forces, and the recognition of differing, yet complimentary, elements. In critiquing sacred texts,

it is possible to use a variety of different criticism such as Reader-Response Criticism, Feminist

Criticism, or in the case of studying Native American sacred ideology, Post-Colonial Criticism.

When examining literature for universal themes or patterns the most appropriate criticism would

be Structuralist Criticism.

STRUCTURALIST AND FEMINIST CRITICISM

Structural Criticism can be defined using a plethora of ideas, facts, and formulas but at its

most base level it is merely, “a method of systematizing human experience” (Tyson 198). Dr.

Lois M. Tyson, Professor of English at Grand Valley State University, is one of the nation’s

prominent scholars in the field of literary critique. In her textbook, Critical Theory Today: A

User Friendly Guide, Dr. Tyson discusses Structuralist Criticism in great detail. What is

important to note is that Structuralist Criticism is not an easy concept to grasp because it involves

looking at the underlying structure of language outside of what is referred to as “surface

phenomena”, or individual words and all the different ways they are pronounced (199). Although

these structures are few without them the world would be chaotic. To be more precise according

to structuralist “the structuring mechanism of the human mind are the means by which we make

sense out of chaos, and literature is a fundamental means by which human beings explain the

world to themselves” (Tyson 208). As a method of criticism, structuralism is not interested in the

interpretation of texts but rather, “how a text means what it means” (Tyson 208). Like the

recurring universal pattern found in the archetype, structuralism goes beyond the minutiae of

language and enters the arena of human science. As Tyson writes, “For structuralism sees itself

as a human science whose effort is to understand, in a systematic way, the fundamental

 20

structures that underlie all human experience and, therefore, all human behavior and production

(198). Likewise, the archetype is defined by its universal appeal and by its ability to explain

human dynamics on a broader scale that is not only consistent but also easily identifiable due to

its defining elements.

As previously noted, for the androgynous archetype these elements include, to name a

few, conflict, balance, and duality. These elements can also be considered structures based on

three key features as explained by Dr. Tyson. The first property of a structure is Wholeness,

which means that the system functions as a unit (200). An example of this is the androgynous

archetypal element of duality. For duality to exist it requires two conflicting, but complimentary

aspects. Light is not light without dark and good is not good without evil. Remove an element

and the structure of duality no longer exists. The second property of a structure is

Transformation. Transformation implies that the structure is not static, by dynamic or capable of

change (Tyson 200). Consider the androgynous element of conflict. Conflict is not static, if

measured on a cosmological scale it is apparent that even the Universe itself is in a state of

eternal conflict. It ebbs and flows like the conflict the androgynous archetype will experience.

Lastly, to be consider a structure there must be present Self-Regulation. To best explain this idea,

consider the element of conflict. Self-Regulation means that the transformation of a structure can

never lead beyond its own structural system (Tyson 200). Conflict can produce elements through

transformation such as revelation but that revelation will always belong to that particular

conflict. In other words, the revelation obtained through one series of conflict will be different

from one produced in another series of conflicts and the two cannot, in theory, be the same

revelation.
 21

As mentioned previously, structuralism is not the interpretation of texts but rather

the process by which texts makes sense. When used as a criticism for critiquing sacred texts this

is important to remember because many times sacred texts are examined only for the process of

interpretation. When this is done, it is possible to overlook the androgynous archetype because

the pattern is not recognized when viewed myopically. The notion of “standing back” when

critiquing literature is especially important when searching for archetypes but also when using

structuralist criticism. Lois Tyson suggests the value of structuralism and how complimentary it

is to archetypal criticism when she writes, “Structuralism seeks instead of the langue of literary

texts, the structure that allows texts to make meaning, often referred to as a grammar because it

governs the rules by which fundamental literary elements are identified (for example, the hero,

the damsel in distress, and the villain)” (208). The hero, villain, and damsel in distress are all

examples of archetypes found in literature so it can be concluded that the androgynous is also

easily identified when using structuralist criticism. In conclusion, the structuralist criticism

identifies the archetype in literature by connecting human ‘structures’ on a universal level,

making the archetype an effective literary device that can be found in literature from the early

ages onward.

Aside from structuralist critique, the subject of androgyny will always be come under the

scope of another criticism: Feminist. Feminist Criticism, in addition to Lesbian, Gay, and Queer

Criticism, is a broad study of the roles of gender in literature. To be more precise, Feminist

Criticism envelops themes of patriarchy, sexuality, and equality under the subcategories such as

Black Feminist Criticism, French Criticism, and Gender Studies and Feminism (Tyson). Feminist

Criticism, like the works of Leonard Shlain, examine the power struggle between genders, the

masculine and feminine, and the exploitation of the feminine by the masculine throughout the
 22

years especially in the context of Western thought and literature. When studying religious

literature on a global level, Feminist Criticism allows for the androgynous to be more defined.

For example, various cultures and societies with deeply spiritual and sacred compositions

consider the masculine and feminine aspects as one. In addition to the Aztecs who worship the

androgynous deity Ometeotl, there exist two Southeast Asian cultures which consider men and

women to be more alike than different.

The first society is the Gerai people of Indonesia where, “there is no sense of

dichotomized masculinity and femininity…Gerai people see no difference between men and

women” (Tyson 106). Another example can be found in the Vanatinai people of New Guinea,

where “ideologies of male superiority or right of authority over women are notably absent, and

ideologies of gender equivalence are clearly articulated” (Tyson 106). In Native America culture,

androgynous individuals are referred to as berdache or “two-spirit”. Although this terminology is

used in relation to gender identification, Native Americans often don’t consider the term “two-

spirit” as referencing a person’s sexual preference or identity. Rather, the term is given to a

spiritual leader or a person deeply revered for their unique and sacred gifts. The article, Two

Spirit People of Indigenous North America, observes “Since everything that exists is thought to

have come from the spirit world, androgynous or transgender persons are seen as doubly blessed,

having both the spirit of a man and the spirit of a woman” (Williams). These observations are

important to note because of their relationship with Feminist Criticism. When Feminist Criticism

is not used in the critique of sacred texts, the value of the androgynous to spiritual cultures that

are not Western cultures, is over-shadowed, neglected, or misinterpreted.

Without Feminist Criticism, ancient scrolls from religions that are predominately

matriarchal, or feminine, become heretical, demonic, or are dismissed as primitive and ignorant
 23

thought. An example of this can be found in the study of the Hellenistic religion, Gnosticism.

The Gnostics were an early sect of worshipers who followed the teachings of the teacher Jesus

Christ but whose “surface phenomena”, or literary interpretation of texts, was in stark contrast to

the interpretations held by the early Christian/Catholic Church. Gnostics believed in the union of

the spirits and their interpretations considered favorably the idea of androgyny, or equality,

amongst the genders. Patriarchal interpretations, however, omitted or dismissed the notion of an

androgynous god for a patriarchal god which excluded all possible elements of a feministic

criticism of sacred texts in ancient times.

The Gnostics were so advanced with their critique of scrolls such as The Gospel of Mary

Magdalene, that author Andre Philip Smith describes the shock felt by Church leader, Tertullian,

upon observing the rituals of the Gnostics, “The enter on equal terms, they listen on equal terms,

they pray on equal terms” (38) and again, “"These heretical women—how audacious they are!

They have no modesty; they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact

exorcisms, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptize!" (38). With the progression of

time, Feminist Criticism spearheaded to the top of the pack as a legitimate method of critiquing

literature, including sacred texts, with the explicit intent that the thoughts of Tertullian would

remain in the Dark Ages, obsolete and obscure.

ANALYSIS OF “THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE”

To fully illustrate how literary critique works when studying, translating, and evaluating

sacred literature this paper will criticism two pieces of sacred texts. The first will be the ancient

scroll known as The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. This scroll is believed to be written during the

time when the prophet and teacher, Yeshua, walked the earth (for the sake of continuity in

examining the The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the name Yeshua will be used in place of Jesus).

The second text to be examined will be the Gnostic epic Pistis Sophia. Both sacred texts are
 24

considered primary pieces of literature by the religious sect know as Gnostics. Gnostics,

according to Philip Andrew Smith, “were distinguished from other early Christians in their

emphasis on gnosis, the Greek word for ‘knowledge’, rather than faith; per the Gnostics, it is

gnosis itself that saves, redeems, and provides liberation” (3). While the early Christians, such as

Tertullian, were seeking ways to sift through the teachings of Christ, the Gnostics were seeking

inclusivity and treated all manuscripts and texts recording by followers of Christ with equal

measure. Additionally, the Gnostics revered Mary Magdalene as not just a follower of Yeshua

but also as an incarnation of the goddess of Wisdom, Sophia (Smith). Gnostics believed her

gospel provided crucial evidence that points to the true spiritual nature of Yeshua but also

reveals the divine nature of humans, male and female alike.

In the year 1945, an Arab named Muhammad Ali made his way to a city in the upper

region of Egypt named Nag Hammadi. Ali was searching for rich soil to fertilize his crops. What

he found instead was a collection of ancient scrolls located in a red earthenware jar. To be more

precise, Muhammad discovered thirteen leather bound papyrus books, referred to as codices, of

unknown origin. The codices were delivered into the hands of subject experts, archeologist,

linguist, and archivist, who identified that the works were written approximately 350 AD. Of

greater importance than the age of the books, however, was the message found within them. The

codices contained ancient Gnostic texts that detailed teachings of Jesus Christ, also referred to as

Yeshua, that were ostracized by the orthodox church as being heretical. These texts included

writings from the apostles Jude and Thomas but also from the most debated and controversial

apostle of Jesus, Mary Magdalene. The sacred knowledge contained in these texts was labeled as

gnostic due to the content, a message that encouraged gnosis or “inner knowledge”, “self-

acquaintance”, or “self-knowledge” (Leloup xi-xii). The foundation of the Gnostic sects is built
 25

upon the understanding that spiritual development and enlightenment are possible through

introspection and self-awareness (Leloup).

The papyrus bound codice that came to be known as The Gospel of Mary Magdalene

features an author whose legitimacy remains a matter of dispute. The star of the gospel, however,

is not. Mary Magdalene, also referred to as Miriam of Magdala, was and is one of the most

controversial figures in Christian lore. Some speculate that she is the partner or consort of Jesus,

while others maintain she is a close companion and apostle tasked with spreading the words and

lessons of Jesus. In The Gospel of Mary Magdalene her role as an apostle is clearly defined.

The gospel begins after the crucifixion of Jesus. Mary and the other apostles have

gathered together in solitude to discuss the last teachings of Yeshua. As Mary instructs the others

in some of the most intimate words of “The Teacher”, she comes to a point when the disciples

become distressed, fearful for their lives and how they are to fulfill Yeshua’s instructions. On the

ninth page of the gospel, Mary encourages them by saying, “Do not remain in sorry and doubt,

for his Grace will guide you and comfort you. Instead, let us praise his greatness, for he has

prepared us for this. He is calling upon us to become fully human [Anthropos]” (Leloup 29). Of

particular interest is Mary’s choice of words and the mystery authors dictation thereof, Mary

refers to the disciples becoming fully human. Leloup develops this concept deeper by suggesting

the translation of this word would be closer to the Greek word Anthropos rather than the term

human. But why is this translation of such importance and how does this translation provide

proof of an androgynous archetype within The Gospel of Mary Magdalene?

Jean-Yves Leloup’s theory on translation is supported by the context of the gnostic

gospel, the instruction of Mary to the disciples designed to not only inspire them to action, but to

remind them of their connection to the divine and humanity. To use the word, human, in context
 26

would be what Leloup considered to be an “impoverished” translation, lacking in substance as

Mary was saying that the Teacher, Yeshua, was calling them to “become fully human”.

However, the disciples and Mary were already fully human, at least biologically speaking. The

word, Anthropos, however, refers to theanthropos with theos meaning “God”, Anthropos

meaning “human” (Leloup 72). So, in short, by inserting Anthropos into the translation rendered

of The Gospel of Mary Magdalene the call to the disciples turns into a call to evolve into a more

complete state of human, to join the lower with the upper and that is only possible by becoming

all forms of human, or feminine and masculine. Leloup’s conscious decision to use Anthropos, in

lieu of, human reflects a structural assessment of the texts, instead of using surface phenomena

and only looking at the intended word, Leloup strives to examine the contexts from a structuralist

viewpoint. In doing so, he sees that Mary’s message is intended to be universal and elevated

beyond gender but representative of the archetype struggle from unevolved being to evolved

being.
 27

In a diagram sketched by Gitta Mallasz, there exist a spiritual pattern to life. This

diagram is found in Leloup’s book as an illustrated explanation of the meaning of Mary’s

passage.

At the bottom level, Gitta illustrates what is called the void or “I am not”. This level is

lower than plant or animal and represents the lowest, most primal state of existence. At the top

level is the area known as “I AM”, which often is substituted in the translation of sacred texts for

the reverential name of God. In between these levels lies the Anthropos, or the

masculine/feminine aspects of androgyny. Only when both aspects are acknowledged as dual and

joint co-sharers in the Anthropos is an individual able to pass through from the “I am not” to the

“I AM”. For this acknowledgement to occur, an individual must recognize both their feminine

and masculine aspects as a tandem, working together to form a passage through to the divine, or

fully evolved human. As Leloup observes, “We know that humanity is a bridge. It must form the

link between the two shores of the created and creative worlds…Some well-known Gnostic

doctrines prefer to speak in terms of androgyne – the union of the masculine and feminine

principals” (74). To read The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and pass by this translation is to
 28

neglect the intended message, thereby removing the substance of the passage. Mary is instructing

the disciples to find their deep sense of humanity that can only be found when compassion and

empathy exists for the gender or sex that is opposite of their own. It could only be found when

the disciples, men who were raised under strict, monotheistic, patriarchal Jewish orthodoxy,

could embrace those of other nations, religions, and beliefs – in the same manner as their great

teacher, Yeshua.

Reaching further into this text, the androgynous archetype is presented. The structure, or

universal pattern, is one of acceptance and atonement. For the disciples to become fully human,

they must be willing to undergo change, the same sort of change that is universal. Further in the

text, Peter challenges the words and teachings of Mary, contesting that Yeshua would not have

been so ambiguous in his teachings “How is it possible that the Teacher talked in this manner

with a woman about secrets of which we ourselves are ignorant” (Leloup 37). In response, the

disciple Levi counters Peters outburst with logic, arguing that Mary was qualified to teach by

Jesus, loved greater by him than any of them, and worthy to impart such wisdom. Levi states,

“Therefore let us atone, and become fully human” (Leloup 38). This exchange is a perfect

example of the hidden messages encrypted within so many sacred texts. If taken literally, the

response of Levi is that to accept, teach, and lead humanity, one must become all humans. If

taken symbolically, Peter represents the universal themes of doubt, mistrust, and anger, Mary

represents truth, knowledge, and wisdom, and Levi is the voice of reason or reconciliation,

reminding the reader of how important it is to let go of the illusion of difference. To the

individual who is unable to break free, the results are feelings of confusion and frustration, to the

individual willing to atone the feelings reveal higher insights into the scope of humanity.
 29

As a cross-reference to the sacred texts of Mary Magdalene, examination of other Gnostic

sacred texts reveals other passages where the androgynous being ‘speaks’ to the reader and/or

reveals itself as a being made up of opposites. One example of such is the Gnostic poem

“Thunder, Perfect Mind”. The author of the poem is believed to be Sophia (Wisdom) or Isis, the

Egyptian embodiment of Wisdom. The androgynous reference here does not point to the

masculine/feminine principals, but rather to the nature of opposites. As explained previously the

nature of opposites, or duality, is a human structure one that is universal and can be explained

using a variety of translations, words, and phrases. For example, “I am the whore and the holy

one/I am the barren one, and many are her sons” (Dashu) illustrates the structure of opposites

and the duality of a being that is both the “and” and the “or”, a total being like the full human

that is both the masculine and feminine while still being able to be feminine or masculine.

Indeed, the sheer coincidence of Yeshua being born of a virgin named Mary (representing the

highest level of chastity) and being the consort to a ‘whore’ named Mary (the lowest level of

depravity) indicates subtle wordplay of ancient sacred literature. The dichotomy of pure and

impure, holy and evil, barren and prolific is representative of the androgynous spirit: a spirit

defined by opposites, either in union with one another or in conflict with each other.

ANALYSIS OF “THE PISTIS SOPHIA”

When considering androgyny within the context of the sacred, esoteric, or mystic text,

change or reconciliation in the main character or theme of the myth is often the result of conflict.

Conflict within sacred literature is suggestive of an archetype because conflict is the result of

opposition between opposites, and opposition is a universal theme that humans often strive to

understand. It is possible to conclude that themes such as conflict, opposition, and struggle are

often what lead an individual or collective to sacred texts. An individual will identify a need for

balance or sense agitation because of inner struggle and turn to sacred literature as a source of
 30

comfort and instruction. In the Gnostic faith tradition, the “Pistis Sophia” is such a text. Written

and read like a great epic poem, in the same fashion as “The Iliad”, “Pistis Sophia” is a highly

complex, esoteric text that baffles many with its use of enigmatic terminology and references to

dimensions and realms outside of human awareness. The sacred epic is set during the time of

Yeshua, the Great Teacher, and the setting is a hidden place in the wilderness where he has

gathered with a group of his most trusted followers, companions, and relatives. Present among

them are Mary Magdalene and the piece “Pistis Sophia” has also been called The Questions of

Mary because of the forty-two questions asked to Yeshua, thirty-nine of them are asked by Mary

Magdalene (“Gnostic Society Library”).

The story of Sophia, Goddess of Wisdom, is “unquestionably a document of the first

importance, not only for the history of Christianized Gnosticism, but also for the history of the

development of religion in the West (Mead). It is considered a legitimate representation of sacred

literature, with a definable plot, characters, and theme. The androgynous archetype is not

referenced in the physical sense but rather the archetype presents as a journey. The journey

becomes an androgynous archetype because the journey involves Sophia (feminine) being

separated from her opposite/consort, Jesus Christ (masculine). The separation is caused by

Sophia’s longing to know and create independent of her consort. In The Apocrypha of John, the

author explains the severity of Sophia’s actions:

Now, Sophia, who is the wisdom of afterthought and who constitutes an

eternal realm, conceived of a thought from herself, with the conception of

the invisible spirit and foreknowledge. She wanted to bring forth

something like herself, without the consent of the spirit, who had not given

approval, without her partner and without his consideration. The male did
 31

not give approval. She did not find her partner, and she considered this

without the spirit’s consent and without the knowledge of her partner.

Nonetheless, she gave birth. And because of the invincible power within

her, her thought was not an idle thought. Something came out of her that

was imperfect and different in appearance from her, for she had produced

it without her partner. It did not resemble its mother and was misshapen. –

(“The Apocryphon of John”)

The androgynous archetypal journey is initiated with the aforementioned actions. The sacred text

goes on to tell, in greater detail, the story of Sophia’s fall from The Thirteen Aeon, which is like

the journey of the hero archetype, the first step being the hero setting out for the journey, be it

willingly or by force. In Paul Branco’s summary of the text he writes:

Pistis Sophia was led to look below and there she saw the light of another entity

called the Lion-Faced Power. Not knowing that it was an emanation of the Self-

Centered One, she decided to go after it, without her consort, to take its light,

thinking that it would enable her to go to the Light of the Height. Once she’d

descended from her place of origin, she was dragged further and further down into

chaos, with the emanations of the Self-Centered One and the Twelve Aeons

constantly chasing after her, trying to take her light away.

The use of metaphor and symbolism dominates, Sophia has a consort, or a masculine

equal named Jesus, and must battle an entity known as “The Self-Centered One”. Representative

of the Ego, The Self-Centered One becomes the greatest enemy to Sophia (Wisdom) when it

convinces her of the illusion of separateness. The androgynous is also represented here by

opposite, but complimentary aspects. Sophia representing Wisdom, or the knowing of right and
 32

wrong, and Jesus Christ representing the Light needed to see wisdom clearly. When the Self-

Centered One, (The Ego) tricks Sophia (Wisdom) she is removed from Jesus (The Light). This

translate into the universal structure of abandoning one’s principles and identity in search of

revelation elsewhere, failing to realize that true revelation and salvation can only come from

within. This represents the struggle of humanity, specifically the split of the androgynous being

from one into two. While Sophia is trapped in the void she cries out with suffering, again, a

metaphorical reference to the suffering that occurs to the soul when it separates from the divine

source and from its complimentary aspect. Sophia represents the pain that occurs when persons

are driven by perfectionism, unable to admit failure, or accept the darker aspects of their being.

Sophia’s fall places her in a position that is counter-intuitive to her divine nature, being created

in the image of an androgynous being, Barbelo the first feminine aspect of the divine and from

which all feminine aspects emanate (Smith).

The Gnostic text, The Apocrypha of John, gives adequate description of Sophia’s

predecessor, Barbelo. The author, John, writes:

She is the first thought, the image of the spirit. She became the universal womb, for she

precedes everything,

the mother-father,

the first human,

the holy spirit,

the triple male,

the triple power,

the androgynous one with three names,

the eternal realm among the invisible beings,

 33

the first to come forth. (“The Apocrypha of John”)

Gnostics translate this passage as meaning that the condition of the human spirit is born in a

similar state, an androgynous, all-inclusive state. Because of societal and cultural condition

designed by The Ego, to appeal to The Ego, humanity is separated from this perfect divine state

of being. Once the separation has occurred, the archetype of the quest begins. It is possible for

reconciliation but only after experience conflict and struggle. And in true nature of the quest

archetype, there general must be a figurative death or shedding of old habits, thoughts, and ideas,

for the conflict to cease.

In the case of Sophia, her fall was symbolic of death and she has even been compared to

another ancient deity, Inanna, the Sumerian princess who was the only one to enter the

Underworld and rise again as told in the Sumerian manuscript Inanna’s Descent to The

Netherworld. Inanna was aided by two small creatures who were believed to have been sent by

her father, Enki “Then father Enki spoke out to the gala-tura and the kur-jara: Go and direct your

steps to the underworld. Flit past the door like flies. Slip through the door pivots like phantom”

(“Inanna’s Descent” 226-35). In similar manner, Jesus Christ entered the realm where Sophia lay

in distress, unknowable and unrecognizable, “Her they knew, but me they knew not, who I was”

(“Pistis Sophia”, Chapter 81) to serve as the helper on her archetypal quest. In literature,

archetypes will often require the aid of a helper, a tool or person that is inserted into the journey

to remind the hero of their identity or to aid them in their quest (“Literary Device”).

In conclusion, the Gnostic myth of Pistis Sophia is a clear and concise representation of

the androgynous archetype in a piece of sacred literature. The story is intended to be a

metaphorical reference of the quest archetype. The universal pattern includes separation, struggle

and conflict, death or acquiescence, and a final rising or return to the elevated status. Sophia,
 34

being created in the image of Barbelo, is a perfect androgynous being married to another

perfected androgynous being, Jesus Christ. This ‘marriage’ creates a fractal like image of the

androgynous folding onto itself to create higher levels of consciousness. When the Self-Centered

One, or Sophia’s under-developed Ego, tricks Sophia into believing that she can create

something without her consort, she falls into ignorance. This theme is universal and represents

the devastation that occurs when humanity becomes individualized without first understanding

the need to be a collective. When males are constantly pressured to “be a man” or females are

viewed as mere sex objects, humanity falls into ignorance. To rise from this ‘fallen’ state, it is

necessary to recognize on a larger scale the need for complimentary opposites and on an

individual scale the need to embrace the totality of one’s being. Sacred literature and texts are the

helpers on this journey but without the proper tools of critique and criticism the helpers are

twisted by The Ego into deformed tools used to further enslave and agitate. Because of this the

androgynous archetype is often sorely overlooked in academia and other secular settings but as

proven, the androgynous archetype deserves to be studied more to provide contemporary culture

the insight to rise again like the once fallen Sophia.

Contemporary culture and the androgynous archetype

Contemporary culture is fluid, constantly in a state of transformation. The laws of supply

and demand suggests that for a culture to thrive, commerce, technology, arts and the humanities,

and inter-cultural relationships must continue to keep up with public demands for growth and

change. Issues at the forefront of modern society include LGBTQ rights, balancing patriarchal

systems by acknowledging the equal matriarchal counterpart, and embracing religious tolerance.

In the literary sense, these issues are being addressed through the work of new artists, especially

gender queer and minority authors, the induction of Feminist and Lesbian, Gay, and Queer
 35

Criticisms, and evaluating sacred manuscripts through new lenses. The word ‘androgynous’ is

used primarily when discussing gender studies but is a term that is rapidly evolving when placed

in modern context to include abstract thought and collective consciousness, such as the

androgynous archetype.

In his book The Origins and History of Consciousness, Erich Neumann writes, “…we use

the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ throughout the book…as symbolic expression. The

symbolism of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ is archetypal and therefore transpersonal.” (Raffa). As

an author, Neumann explains that to effectively reach an audience of such vastly different

individualities, it becomes necessary to defer to the masculine and feminine as symbolic. These

aspects become representative of qualities and traits, and in doing so, allow the reader to

formulate their own interpretation of the text. When this is combined with the theme of

androgyny in literature, specifically sacred text, it allows the reader to interpret the text in a way

that becomes more beneficial.

For example, a reader’s criticism of choice may shift from Structuralist (identifying

structures within the sacred text) to Feminist (establishing and conceptually recognizing themes

such as duality, equality, and reconciliation) to finally, Reader-Response (creating an

individualized interpretation based on the reader’s personal experiences). When this occurs,

literature takes on a different dynamic, sacred texts become less pedantic and more artistic, allow

the reader to determine the intended meaning. But why is this important and how does this idea

influence modern society? Can this idea re-invent not only how sacred texts are read and

critiqued, but how they are viewed as a literary genre and shape the context and future of

religion?
 36

Richard Shlain’s answer to the latter is reassuring: yes. Take for example the dominance

of patriarchal systemization that has dominated sacred texts of the one of the world’s major

religious groups, Christianity. Years ago, the Gnostics were one of many heretical sects that

tried, and failed, to challenge the patriarchal strong arm of Christianity, especially Catholicism.

Shlain writes, “The Gnostics prided themselves on their lack of distinction between male and

female, rich and poor, educated and unlettered. They wanted to create an egalitarian church that

conformed to Jesus’ original message” (239). After proving unsuccessful in their attempts, many

Gnostic and esoteric sects broke off and were forced underground.

Moving forward to the 15th and 16th Centuries sacred texts containing heretical messages

honoring the feminine principal were outlawed and women who were suspected as being witches

(or being powerful and female) are burned alive. Additionally, many important and critical

sacred manuscripts are lost forever or prohibited by decree of the orthodox Christian, specifically

Catholic, church. Of note however, “Early Christians did not sanction witch hunts. Neither

Gnostics nor Orthodox ever engaged in one, and the people who lived through the Dark Ages

honored their “shamanic women” rather than despise them” (Shlain 365). Because of the zealous

efforts of the Orthodox Church to stifle any teachings or writings that empowered the feminine

divine, or feminine principal, secular and modern religion took on a different dynamic. Sacred

texts lost their way from the English literary critique and remained in the halls of seminaries,

only referenced by theologians or clergy. The message of the androgynous archetype, like so

many other religious messages of tolerance, was replaced with the idea of “separation of the

sexes”. For some this idea went beyond the doors of the church and infected cultures,

communities, and families.

 37

The Gnostics of earlier centuries examined and critiqued sacred literature differently. By

honoring the divine feminine principles personified in deities such as Sophia and Barbelo, the

Gnostics’ interpretation of sacred literature was inclusive and egalitarian (Smith). Their message

was one of androgyny, one of harmony, and equality. Yet, most of their sacred texts and

religious literature is rarely discussed in Western context, and certainly almost never in

traditional Westernized academia. Students and scholars seeking knowledge of the androgynous

often must dig through countless books, manuscripts, and documents to find clues of the

androgynous. Even in Gender Studies courses, the focus is generally on the role of gender in

relationship to religion, how gender is identified, and challenges faced by marginalized genders

or those of differing gender identities. But in the Religion or Theology course, the androgynous

deity is obscured by the giant looming shadow of the male deity, the dominate “He” “Lord” and

“Father”.

To further illustrate, consider the work of Char McKee, contributing author to the

anthology of works entitled The Goddess Reawakened.

In the Goddess Reawakened, McKee begins:

During the last 5,000 years, most of woman’s experience has been dominated by the

belief system of patriarchy. It has been the master thought-form which has molded us,

shaped us, and formed the larger context in which we have lived and dreamt our dreams.

It is the thought-form which has organized our attention, and formed the framework upon

which we have defined our every life experience (250).

This belief system has excluded any sign of a feminine deity from sacred texts, stricken the

feminine imagination from the process of translation and interpretation, and in a proverbial sense,

like the Hebrew deity, YHWH, has prohibited the very image of the feminine in religious literature
 38

proclaiming “Thou shalt place no other god before me”. Prominent author and expert in heretical

literature, Margaret Starbird, postulates that early sects such as the Gnostics fought against the

patriarchal, one-sided presentation of sacred texts, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ. She

writes, “They understood that denial and repression of the feminine had warped and distorted their

society, robbing it of ecstasy and freedom. The work of these intellectuals…coalesced in its

attempt to restore the Woman, the forgotten feminine, to consciousness” (Starbird 117). The only

way to successful represent the androgynous deity in sacred literature is by first acknowledging

the masculine and feminine and then common themes and structures will be revealed. Is it possible

to obtain this acknowledgement in contemporary culture by restructuring literary critique? The

answer is equivocally, yes.

Char McKee provides a social-political analysis of a system that, if used, would balance

the patriarchal ideas with matriarchal ones while simultaneously magnifying the presence of the

androgynous archetype. The first example compares the patriarchal “central theme of creation is

separateness” with the androgynous theme “the central theme of creation is interrelatedness” (254).

Other examples include:

Patriarchal (Dominate) Androgynous (Passive)

-Reality is mechanistic. -Reality is alive.

-The rest of nature was made for our -We are all care-takers of the Earth and
species to dominate all life forms.
-There are not enough resources to meet -There are enough resources to meet
needs of everyone everyone’s needs.
-The only valid way of knowing reality is -There are many valid ways of knowing
with the logical mind. reality.
(McKee 254-257)

Using McKee’s formula as a rubric sacred literature takes on new meaning. No longer are texts

to be viewed as literal or with a forced, logical perspective. Under McKee’s theory, the texts take

on a new, imaginative perspective, one that allows the reader to become both masculine and
 39

feminine, light and dark, good and evil, with the understanding that right and wrong are also

androgynous, interchangeable and meant to complement each other perfectly.

Once the androgynous archetype emerges from sacred literature in all its many forms,

religious tolerance becomes a natural byproduct. Words like heretical and orthodox are no longer

defined for the reader, but rather, by the reader. The goal of the androgynous archetype is to

complete the archetypal quest, to bring the reader to reconciliation with whatever opposite they

may conflict with. Leonard Shlain and his many examples of androgynous archetypes, including

literary, literal, symbolic, and metaphoric archetypes, provides the context for how the separation

of the androgynous occurred but also, how the quest can be completed. In specific relationship to

the reconciliation of opposing religious beliefs, Shlain writes, “I am convinced we are entering a

new Golden Age – one in which the right-hemisphere values of tolerance, caring, and respect for

nature will begin to ameliorate the conditions that have prevailed for the too-long period during

which the left-hemispheric values were dominate” (432). Also, note, “the values that typify the

right-brain include empathy with the plight of one’s companions, generosity toward strangers,

tolerance of dissent…forgiveness of enemies […] The Gospels that contain the words of Jesus

Christ overwhelmingly accentuate the values of the right-brain” (338). Per Shlain the key to

religious tolerance lies in activating the dormmate state of the right-brain on a collective level,

which will in turn, extend tolerance to strangers, enemies, and those who society deems to be

different, such as LGBTQ persons.

In the 21st century, the face of religion has, to many people, turned ugly. Individuals who

identify with a sexual identity other than heterosexual are constantly faced with the pressures of

society; many of which come forth from religious intolerance. By neglecting the essential

contribution of the right-brain, many individuals miss the androgynous archetype. As Peter was
 40

unable to understand the words of Jesus when he said he would make Mary Magdalene male, so

too many individuals have only allowed the rigorous laws of archaic sacred texts to navigate

their social and moral compass. Cultures that do honor the androgynous spirit, such as most

Native American tribes, are ostracized or forced to assimilate their beliefs to be “saved” or for

the sake of salvation. Postcolonial criticism details with great specificity the plight of indigenous

or “savage” cultures who were prohibited from worshiping idols, or images, with images being

linked to the feminine aspect of the divine (Tyson). When this occurs, it becomes impossible to

recognize androgyny, the brain is systematically program to reject anything considered foreign,

heretical, demonic, savage, or primitive, as pagan or evil.

Homosexuality, in the eyes of some influential religious organizations, is often the

gravest of offenses, since homosexual individuals generally define themselves as “both/and”

instead of “or”. A homosexual male might say he is both masculine and feminine because his

sex is male but his attraction is to men, thus making it feminine (or the opposite of the masculine

attraction). This individual is thereby more conscious of the androgynous state, in comparison to

a heterosexual male who may define himself as “masculine or not masculine” with scant

reference to the possibility of being “masculine and feminine” while retaining his sexual

attraction to only females. Consider the words of Robert Lindsey, a gay man who states, “A lot

of gay men call themselves androgynous”, and “If you have a feminine part going on too, it

doesn’t cancel out the masculine part. They both exist in tandem”. These statements indicate that

gay men, and most likely gay women, recognize their dual nature and many times may struggle

to identify with culture, including sacred literature, because how they express their sexuality falls

beyond the realm of binary.

 41

Naturally, not all homosexual or heterosexual individuals fall into this category but the

current interpretations of sacred texts are not flexible enough to accommodate slight deviations.

Individuals who identify as heterosexual mistake the androgynous as only referring to an

individual possessing two sex organs and/or displaying strong characteristics of the gender

opposite their own. Homosexual individuals identify as being in possession of specific physical

characteristics ascribed to one sex while feeling attraction for the same sex or gender. And in the

middle of these two groups are individuals who truly do identify as androgynous, asexual, or

non-binary; a small and often overlooked group of people who also miss out on the androgynous

archetype and how a better understanding of how it presents in literature can be of great support

to them.

Re-introducing the androgynous archetype to secular and religious literature criticism

benefits not only LGBTQ persons but heterosexual persons as well. Sacred literature should be

taught once an individual has learned basic literary technique, including literary tools such as

simile, metaphor, and symbolism. During formative years, persons should not have their choice

of sexuality influenced by someone else’s interpretation of a sacred and holy texts. Lois M.

Tyson writes, “Thus, sexuality is completely controlled neither by our biological sex (male or

female) nor by the way our culture translates biological sex into gender roles (masculine or

feminine). Sexuality exceeds these definitions and has a will, a creativity, an expressive need of

its own” (320-321). Once an individual has been allowed to respectfully express his or her

sexuality, then sacred texts take on personalized meaning. Introducing concepts such as

androgyny no longer become heretical, they become natural and meaningful. The archetype

becomes universal, repeating patterns to like-minded individuals who, regardless of sexual

 42

orientation, find common ground and ways of teaching, interacting with, and instructing others.

The future of sacred texts and understanding is redefined.

Conclusion

Yeshua said to them,

When you make the two into one,

and when you make the inner like the outer

and the outer like the inner

and the upper like the lower,

and when you make male and female into a single one,

so that the male will not be male nor the female be female,

when you make eyes in place of an eye,

a hand in place of a hand,

a foot in place of a foot,

an image in place of an image,

then you will enter the kingdom. (The Gospel of Thomas verse 22)

Myths, legends, and lore come together with tradition and ritual to create the profound

experience known only as: the sacred. What determines if something is sacred or not starts off

with a personal revelation, a divine inspiration, or a miraculous occurrence and from there a

cataclysmic chain-reaction occurs. An idea is recorded, a prayer transcribed, or a song composed

into written expression and shared with one other person. That one other person quickly becomes

two other people who, in turn, become hundreds of people, thousands of people, a nation of

people. The beauty of the sacred is forever preserved and passed from generation to generation,

sometimes loved and adored and other times scorned and alienated. The definitions of words like

god, salvation, and evil become intertwined, translated and re-translated until finally the
 43

definition is elevated to sacred law or forever cursed as sacrilegious heresy. Androgynous and

androgyny are such a words, loved and hated, accepted or neglected because of their complexity

and relationship to the individual which often far surpasses their relationship to the collective. In

literature, it’s a word that is obscure and misunderstood even at times when it’s in plain sight, the

mind has a funny way of twisting the beauty of the androgynous into something unnatural.

Yet despite this natural occurrence and unexplainable phenomenon, once the

androgynous is understood it rises, like the goddess Sophia, out of the proverbial darkness that is

ignorance to its rightful and natural place. At the core of humanity, there is and always will be

androgyny. In sacred texts, in secular texts, in media, in human relationships, it is there. Where

there is conflict and struggle, where opposition exists, when reconciliation is mandatory, at the

very core there lies androgyny. The masculine and feminine were created to balance, not

subjugate and in sacred literature the balance is there and needs to be exposed to the world with

the same magnitude that the Self-Centered Ego strives to strike the balance from human

expression. There is room for both, the archetypal representation of the androgynous is big

enough and universal enough to fit all sacred texts, all translations, all interpretations because by

its very nature it is inclusive. It is big enough to demonstrate religious tolerance, and respect for

all persons while still being small enough to be as personal and as unique as the individual

reading a bible, a scroll, or a manuscript. It can be defined using literary critique and criticism,

devices and tools, and if given its appropriate recognition can create a dually beautiful,

completely balanced literate society where all persons are equal.

 44

Works Cited

"10 Most Influential Sacred Texts In History." History List. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

Appel, Daniel. "The Shocking True History of Baphomet, The Sabbatic Goat." Ultraculture.
N.p., n.d. Web.

Audlin, James David. "Making Mary Male: Is Gospel of Thomas Logion 114 Really
Misogynist?" Academia. Academia Education, 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

Binkley, Roberta. "Biography of Enheduanna, Priestess of Inanna." Feminist Theory Website.

Center for Digital Discourse and Culture at Virginia Tech University, 1998. Web. 04
Dec. 2016.

Black, Joseph, Leonard Conolly, Kate Flint, Isobel Grundy, Don LePan, Roy Liuzza, Jerome J.
McGann, Anne Lake Prescott, Barry V. Qualls, and Claire Waters, eds. Broadview
Anthology of British Literature: Age of Romanticism. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Buffalo:
Broadview, 2010. Print.

Branco, Raul. "The Pistis Sophia: An Introduction." Quest 99.4 (FALL 2011):144-151.

Cancelli, Anna Maria. "The Androgyny of an Angel." Thesis. University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, 2003. Web. 09 Dec. 2016.

Cervigni, Dino S. “Literature, Religion, and the Sacred.” Annali d'Italianistica, vol. 25, 2007, pp.
11–22.
Delayhoyde, Michael. "Archetypal Criticism." WSU: Critical Theory. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec.
2016.
Frye, Northrup. The Anatomy of Criticism:. 10th ed. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1957. Print.
"Ganymede (mythology)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.
Golden, Carl. "The 12 Common Archetypes." Soulcraft. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

Harper, Elizabeth. "Androgynous Archetypes." Samkyha Wicca. N.p., 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.

"Hermaphroditos." Theoi. N.p., n.d. Web.

"Heroine’s Journey I." The Heroine Journeys Project. N.p., 2015. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

"Inana's Descent to the Nether World: Translation." The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian
Literature. N.p., n.d. Web.

Johnson, Toby. "Techniques of the World Saviors: Bodhissatva Avalokiteshavar." Toby Johnson.
N.p., n.d. Web.
 45

Kalkinath. "Ardhanarishwara - the God Who Is Half Woman." Philine. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec.
2016.

Kohler, Kaufmann, and Ludwig Blau. "Shekinah." Jewish Encyclopedia. Jewish Encycylopedia,
2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2016.

Leloup, Jean-Yves. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2002.
Print.

Lindsey, Robert. "What Androgyny Is and What It Isn't." Beyond Highbrow. Wordpress, 11 Jan.
2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.

"Literary Devices: Archetypes." Literary Devices. N.p., n.d. Web.

Mark, Joshua J. "Literature." Ancient History Encyclopedia. N.p., 02 Sept. 2009. Web. 06 Dec.
2016.

Nicholson, Shirley. The Goddess Reawakened: The Feminine Principal Today. 4th ed. Wheaton:
Theosophical House, 1989. Print.

"Northrop Frye's Theory of Archetypes." N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2016.

Raffa, Jean. "Anima/Animus: The Archetype of Contrasexuality." Jean Raffa. Wordpress, 22

Dec. 2015. Web.

"Scripture: Religious Literature." Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 04

Dec. 2016.

Shlain, Leonard. The Alphabet versus the Goddess: The Conflict between Word and Image. New
York: Viking, 1998. Print.

Smith, Philip Andrew. The Secret History of the Gnostics: Their Scriptures, Beliefs and
Traditions. N.p.: Watkins, 14 April 2015. Print.

Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen Marie. Higgins. From Africa to Zen: An Invitation to World
Philosophy. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 20033. Print.

Stenudd, Stefan. "Psychoanalysis of Myth 6: Freud's and Jung's Theories on Myth and Its
Origin." Stenudd - Myth. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

Sunfell. "Making Oneself Male." Sunfell. N.p., 2001. Web. 8 Dec. 2016.

Tacon, Paul S.C., Wilson, Meredith & Chippindale, Christopher. "Birth of the Rainbow Serpent
in Arnhem land rock art and oral history". Archaeology in Oceania. 31. 103-124. Print.
08 Dec 2016.
 46

“The Gospel of Thomas” N.p., n.d., Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

"The Thunder, Perfect Mind." PBS. Ed. James M. Robinson. Trans. George W. MacRae. N.p.,
Apr. 1998. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge,
2015. Print.

Williams, Walter L. "The Two-Spirit People of Indigenious North America." First People. First
People of America & First People of Canada, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.