Traditions: Israelite-Jewish Genesis; second-century Sethian Christian myth Motif: Creation of Adam in a divine image Connection verdict: Deliberate scriptural rewriting within the Sethian text Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-11-01
Summary
Both passages make the first human in relation to a divine image and use language of likeness.
Read the two scenes
Genesis places the plural deliberation inside a compact account of God making humanity in the divine image and blessing human life. The Apocryphon relocates that familiar formula into a drama of lesser authorities. They have seen an image above themselves reflected below, and each contributes to a constructed Adam. Their product initially lacks the power of the higher model. The change is theological, not merely decorative: resemblance to the divine image becomes the means by which the archons are unwittingly drawn into a larger rescue plot.
What connects—and what does not
Genesis presents God’s intentional creation; the Apocryphon gives subordinate archons an image seen in water and makes their imitation incomplete.
The Apocryphon explicitly echoes Genesis 1:26; this is literary reinterpretation, not evidence that Genesis borrowed from Sethian myth.
Why read them side by side?
A named Sethian rewriting exposes how a familiar creation verse could be reread against the authority of its apparent creator.
Sources and reading notes
- Genesis 1:26-27 (NRSVUE) — God resolves to make humankind in the divine image, male and female. NRSVUE English translation; Genesis formed during the first millennium BCE; dating details remain debated.
- Sethian Apocryphon of John, Wisse translation — The archons say “let us create” after seeing a luminous image reflected in water and name their product Adam. Frederik Wisse translation of a fourth-century Coptic Nag Hammadi witness; Greek composition usually placed in the second century CE, with multiple ancient recensions.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.