Very supportive for a such claim is that the archontes are really reduced to 'scribes and pharisees' in proto-Luke (= Mcn), while what would be more expected, if the anti-demiurgism had not played no role at all in the process of the formation of the Earliest Gospel, is that the archontes were reduced to Roman authorities, not to priests.schillingklaus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:00 pm The pre-gnostic original would be something like "Adam realized that the serpent taught with power, not like YHWH and his angels."
This was gradually judaized and euhemerized when YHWH was rehabilitated as a good angel, and even more when he was identified with The Father. So by the time of making the Christian narratives, the serpent had become the historical messiah and the archons became worldly teachers of the day, opposing the doctrines of the authors and redactors.
Contra factum that the "scribes and pharisees" are explicitly called 'archontes', never Pilate is called archon, but only hegemon: a term that is totally absent in Nag Hammadi literature, isn't it?
True, a Roman governor has to be there because only he could dispense crucifixions, and the celestial crucifixion required an earthly agent with a such particular task.
But then the fact that just the 'scribes and pharisees' are the archontes seems to be decisive evidence to prove the Jean Magne's thesis, that the Earliest Gospel had deliberately judaized a celestial anti-demiurgist deity (the genesiac Serpent or Jesus) working exclusively in the heavens (and on earth as mere divine revealer via dreams, hallucinations, visions, etc).