Hey Andrew

>>>I will give away a copy of GTCW. But I'll be more than dishonest,
I'll be totally subjective--I'll give the book to the person who
posts the baseball article that I like best.<<<

Fair enough. In truth I doubt you will see many people here
scrambling for a copy of Davies' book. More important to me is that
the points of debate about Thomas are presented accurately.

I have often raised the question in this forum as to whether Thomas
is Gnostic when people have assumed it is. Likewise I have pointed
out Gnostic elements when people have assumed it is not. I am not
uncomfortable with the ambiguity. Of course, I have my own ideas
about the issue.

>>>My "on the other hand" was an attempt to see some validity in
Ehrman's analogy by applying it to other writings. Perhaps the
Exegesis isn't such a good example either. It could be looked at as
a Christian Platonic writing, and it certainly lays out a myth.<<<

The line between "Gnosticism" and other forms of Christian Platonism
is not always clear and easy to outline. There is some fuzzy ground
here.

As far as finding validity in Ehrman's analogy, it may be better to
think of it for what it was.... simply an attempt to put a logical
point that would not be desputed in any academic setting into plain
lingo that the layperson would hopefully understand. The reason for
the point is that there have been a number of people out there
debating the categorization of Thomas based on a sort of flawed
modus ponens argument. Whether or not Ehrman is correct in
constructing a case for a Gnostic core in Thomas, his deconstruction
of that modus ponens argument is logically valid and correct.

A full construction of a hermeneutic core simply can't be built or
discounted based ONLY on subtle contexts or the lack of the
explicit. Let me give you an example by asking you a question about
commentary that may relate to Ehrman's analogy.

From a sports reporter....

"... OH, he caught it midfield. Wow! He.. is.. driving... it...
home. Looks like the tide is turning in this game."

Now, how do you know what is going on here? How can you demonstrate
that this is about baseball? I would challenge you to do so. If you
can then maybe Ehrman's point is all wrong.

>>>No, the last paragraph wasn't connected with Ehrman's analogy.
When I posted the original question I was hoping to think about
Thomas differently. What do you make of the strong parallels to
Philo in Thomas?<<<

I think that the parallels between Philo and the Tripartite Tractate
are far more explicit. I doubt anyone would deny the implications
(and connections) that Gnostic thinking and Jewish Platonism of the
sort that Philo represents have toward each other. These strains of
thought are very close and surely fed into each other to some
extent. Of course we do also see non-Gnostic forms of Christian
Platonism as well, such as Origen or Clement. However, I would point
out that in the case of Thomas we are talking about more than the
mythological structure, we need to take into account an explicit
soteriology that is closer to the Gospel of Truth.

I would be interested to hear you construct an argument for
attributes of Christian Platonism (as a category) that would exclude
Gnosticism.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
<snip>
> I have often raised the question in this forum as to whether Thomas
> is Gnostic when people have assumed it is. Likewise I have pointed
> out Gnostic elements when people have assumed it is not. I am not
> uncomfortable with the ambiguity. Of course, I have my own ideas
> about the issue.

Could you recap your view of Thomas, or point me to earlier posts?

>
> >>>My "on the other hand" was an attempt to see some validity in
> Ehrman's analogy by applying it to other writings. Perhaps the
> Exegesis isn't such a good example either. It could be looked at as
> a Christian Platonic writing, and it certainly lays out a myth.<<<
>
> The line between "Gnosticism" and other forms of Christian Platonism
> is not always clear and easy to outline. There is some fuzzy ground
> here.
>

Yes, lots of fuzziness in this, I'll admit that.

<snip>
>
> From a sports reporter....
>
> "... OH, he caught it midfield. Wow! He.. is.. driving... it...
> home. Looks like the tide is turning in this game."
>
> Now, how do you know what is going on here? How can you demonstrate
> that this is about baseball? I would challenge you to do so. If you
> can then maybe Ehrman's point is all wrong.

There's not much to go on here, but I'll take a stab at it. My guess
is that this isn't baseball, since my googling suggests that
"midfield" isn't a term used in baseball. It seems to be a game where
the players are allowed to use their hands and the "wow" makes me
think that the commentator might be American, so I'll guess that this
is about American football.


<snip>
>
> I would be interested to hear you construct an argument for
> attributes of Christian Platonism (as a category) that would exclude
> Gnosticism.
>

I'm not sure that I quite understand what you're after here. (I've
never thought of Thomas as Christian Platonism and, despite my
comment, I consider the Exegesis to be gnostic.) Anti-gnostic
qualities? Lack of a demiurge? Attitude towards the soul? An orthodox
attitude to Jesus' earthly life and mission? I'm sure you're going to
demolish each of these in turn.

Best Wishes

Andrew

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "smithand44" <smithand44@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, it's fun. Perhaps in two thousand years time, critical
scholars
> will be arguing whether these verse are truly about baseball. Is
> "a-hugging" an important piece of baseball jargon? Was Mudville a
> major team? And were Cooney, Blake, Casey and Flynn real players?
(The
> last I'm genuinely curious about).
>
> It has umpires and innings, so some may see this as a poem about
> cricket rather than baseball. But for me the "strike one... strike
> two... strike out" clinches it.
>
> The umpire may represent the demiurge, and Casey with his "smile of
> Christian charity" is obviously a redeemer figure.
>
> You'll be receiving a copy of GTCW unless someone finds a more
> Andrew-pleasing example.
>
> Andrew

Hi Andrew,
I'm glad you liked it. I wasn't sure it fit within the rules of your
contest, but like you say, it is fun. I don't know if they were real
players. My opinion is they weren't.

Ken

Hey Andrew

>>>Could you recap your view of Thomas, or point me to earlier posts?
<<<

Sure. Since Thomas comes up in so many posts, this is one case where
looking in the archives is a bit difficult.

Basically, my position is that frankly we don't have enough to be
positive. I have not always been well recieved for saying this (not
only about Thomas, but about other historical subjects in this
area), so I am glad that you agreed with me about the issue of
how "fuzzy" the lines can be.

There are some Gnostic elements in Thomas that I think are
important, but depending on exactly where we would draw the line
they could be understood as being related to Gnostic thought without
actually BEING Gnostic. The points that would be important about
Thomas would then be whether we see some non-Gnostic qualities
(hense the question about where the line would be drawn).

>>>There's not much to go on here, but I'll take a stab at it. My
guess is that this isn't baseball, since my googling suggests that
"midfield" isn't a term used in baseball. It seems to be a game where
the players are allowed to use their hands and the "wow" makes me
think that the commentator might be American, so I'll guess that this
is about American football.<<<

Good job, actually, but not exactly. You are right, there is not
much to go on and that was part of my point. I almost posted two
more examples and one of them was almost identical and about
baseball.

Here is the problem. You deconstructed the point, but then you also
constructed another. These are two different things. Although you
deconstructed the example based on flawed info, you are right this
example was not about baseball. Nor was it about football. Actually,
it was from a local lacrosse game.

Midfield IS actually a common term used in baseball (the area
between the "outfield" and the "infield" is midfield), as with
nearly any sport. I am not sure what happened in your Google search,
but my Yahoo search turns up many thousands of examples. Perhaps,
though, it is better to err on the side of caution and deconstruct.
That puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of those who wish to
construct... and that is where it should be.

For the record, the actual baseball example I was going to use also
uses the term "midfield", but I think it would have been more
obvious because it uses the word "base". The word "home" has special
meaning in baseball, but can be extended in a general way to other
usages. In fact, this lacrosse example was very likely influenced by
baseball lingo. Interestingly, the word "base" is really the only
word that could be used in the example to make it different from the
example I do give.

This alone demonstrates Ehrman's example on the deconstruction end.

>>>I'm not sure that I quite understand what you're after here. (I've
never thought of Thomas as Christian Platonism and, despite my
comment, I consider the Exegesis to be gnostic.) Anti-gnostic
qualities? Lack of a demiurge? Attitude towards the soul? An orthodox
attitude to Jesus' earthly life and mission? I'm sure you're going to
demolish each of these in turn.<<<

You make me sound so sordid and unfair ;)

The reason I thought you figured Thomas to not be Gnostic is that
you said you found Davies' argument for the non-Gnostic origin to be
convincing. And, although you did not technically say that you
thought of Thomas as Christian Platonism, you did say "It could be
looked at as a Christian Platonic writing, and it certainly lays out
a myth.", and then asked me about Philo in conjunction with
Thomas... so I simply wanted to deal with that issue.

I do think maybe there are ways to draw the lines, but I was curious
if you would use similar methods and attributes that I would think
of. I do feel the need to question some of your points, all the
same. Actually, since you mentioned Philo I think the relation means
we can bring him into the subject even though he is not Christian.

1) Lack of a demiurge?

Philo talks about a Demiurge. So does Origen. A Jewish and a
Christian Platonist... neither are Gnostic. This means we simply
cannot use that as a categorical attribute. Since the notion of
the "demiurge" is pretty basic to Platonist thinking, we would have
to question whether the lack of demiurge could maybe imply a lack of
Platonism.

2) Attitude towards the soul?

Gnostic sources are not all in agreement here, neither are non-
Gnostic sources. Do you have something more specific in mind? I
can't agree or disagree.

3) An orthodox attitude to Jesus' earthly life and mission?

By "orthodox" do you mean something that would agree with some
modern Christian church? I ask this because everyone in Christian
history thinks of themselves as "orthodox". I don't see this modern
ideal generally presented in Christian Platonist writings... nor
always completely disregarded in Gnostic writings. Perhaps I
misunderstand your point, though.

Thomas' view of Jesus is not in line with modern Christian thinking,
though I don't know what we could use that to imply about Thomas.

4) Anti-gnostic qualities?

Well, I guess that was my original question. I was looking for
specific qualities that you could give for making a line. I
understand that we both agree the line is fuzzy, so I am not trying
to put you on the spot. I just hoped maybe you could give us
something more specific for the sake of making the line all the same.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "smithand44" <smithand44@...>
wrote:
>
> >
> > From a sports reporter....
> >
> > "... OH, he caught it midfield. Wow! He.. is.. driving... it...
> > home. Looks like the tide is turning in this game."
> >
> > Now, how do you know what is going on here? How can you
demonstrate
> > that this is about baseball? I would challenge you to do so. If
you
> > can then maybe Ehrman's point is all wrong.
>
> There's not much to go on here, but I'll take a stab at it. My
guess
> is that this isn't baseball, since my googling suggests that
> "midfield" isn't a term used in baseball. It seems to be a game
where
> the players are allowed to use their hands and the "wow" makes me
> think that the commentator might be American, so I'll guess that
this
> is about American football.

Baseball does have a midfield, but in baseball they don't drive it
home. I wouldn't think a sports reporter would make that mistake. I
don't think it's about football either. In football they don't drive
it home either.

Ken

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gnostic_ken" <gnostic_ken@...> wrote:
>
>
> Baseball does have a midfield, but in baseball they don't drive it
> home. I wouldn't think a sports reporter would make that mistake. I
> don't think it's about football either. In football they don't drive
> it home either.
>
> Ken
>

Excellent points, Ken.  I'm thinking maybe it was "lacrosse." 

Did PMCV offer a prize for the winner of his challenge?  I'm sure he knows better than to send me a book by Davies, but maybe we could put some money on this—just to make it interesting?

Gerry

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
<snip>

Hi Karl,

Thanks for recapping your views on Thomas.

>
> There are some Gnostic elements in Thomas that I think are
> important, but depending on exactly where we would draw the line
> they could be understood as being related to Gnostic thought without
> actually BEING Gnostic. The points that would be important about
> Thomas would then be whether we see some non-Gnostic qualities
> (hense the question about where the line would be drawn).
>
> >>>There's not much to go on here, but I'll take a stab at it. My
> guess is that this isn't baseball, since my googling suggests that
> "midfield" isn't a term used in baseball. It seems to be a game where
> the players are allowed to use their hands and the "wow" makes me
> think that the commentator might be American, so I'll guess that this
> is about American football.<<<
>
> Good job, actually, but not exactly. You are right, there is not
> much to go on and that was part of my point. I almost posted two
> more examples and one of them was almost identical and about
> baseball.
>
> Here is the problem. You deconstructed the point, but then you also
> constructed another. These are two different things. Although you
> deconstructed the example based on flawed info, you are right this
> example was not about baseball. Nor was it about football. Actually,
> it was from a local lacrosse game.
>
> Midfield IS actually a common term used in baseball (the area
> between the "outfield" and the "infield" is midfield), as with
> nearly any sport. I am not sure what happened in your Google search,
> but my Yahoo search turns up many thousands of examples. Perhaps,
> though, it is better to err on the side of caution and deconstruct.
> That puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of those who wish to
> construct... and that is where it should be.
>
> For the record, the actual baseball example I was going to use also
> uses the term "midfield", but I think it would have been more
> obvious because it uses the word "base". The word "home" has special
> meaning in baseball, but can be extended in a general way to other
> usages. In fact, this lacrosse example was very likely influenced by
> baseball lingo. Interestingly, the word "base" is really the only
> word that could be used in the example to make it different from the
> example I do give.
>
> This alone demonstrates Ehrman's example on the deconstruction end.

I don't want to go too much further with this because it's a side
issue and not very productive, but your example does clarify my
difficulty with Ehrman's analogy. A baseball article which has roughly
the same relationship to baseball as Thomas might have to Gnosticism
could also be construed to not be about baseball at all. And your
example actually proves the opposite--your excerpt looks like it's
about baseball, but it isn't about baseball at all. If we allow that
an Australian or British sports commentator might also say "wow" and
that one can "catch" with feet or with a stick, and that "driving it
home" is just a general piece of English language idiom, then the
snippet might also have referred to soccer, rugby league, rugby union,
soccer, Australian rules football, etc. Just as light, life, lions,
protological language, knowing, flesh, soul, spirit, etc. are used in
many traditions.

>
> >>>I'm not sure that I quite understand what you're after here. (I've
> never thought of Thomas as Christian Platonism and, despite my
> comment, I consider the Exegesis to be gnostic.) Anti-gnostic
> qualities? Lack of a demiurge? Attitude towards the soul? An orthodox
> attitude to Jesus' earthly life and mission? I'm sure you're going to
> demolish each of these in turn.<<<
>
> You make me sound so sordid and unfair ;)
>
> The reason I thought you figured Thomas to not be Gnostic is that
> you said you found Davies' argument for the non-Gnostic origin to be
> convincing. And, although you did not technically say that you
> thought of Thomas as Christian Platonism, you did say "It could be
> looked at as a Christian Platonic writing, and it certainly lays out
> a myth.", and then asked me about Philo in conjunction with
> Thomas... so I simply wanted to deal with that issue.

No, that was the Exegesis that I was saying might be Xian Platonic. It
was just an aside--my emails are full of sloppy sentences and
half-finished ideas.
>
> I do think maybe there are ways to draw the lines, but I was curious
> if you would use similar methods and attributes that I would think
> of. I do feel the need to question some of your points, all the
> same. Actually, since you mentioned Philo I think the relation means
> we can bring him into the subject even though he is not Christian.
>
> 1) Lack of a demiurge?
>
> Philo talks about a Demiurge. So does Origen. A Jewish and a
> Christian Platonist... neither are Gnostic. This means we simply
> cannot use that as a categorical attribute. Since the notion of
> the "demiurge" is pretty basic to Platonist thinking, we would have
> to question whether the lack of demiurge could maybe imply a lack of
> Platonism.
>

Origen's demiurge is Christ, isn't it? What about the lack of an
"evil" demiurge. "Evil" isn't the right word, but you can see what I
mean here.

> 2) Attitude towards the soul?
>
> Gnostic sources are not all in agreement here, neither are non-
> Gnostic sources. Do you have something more specific in mind? I
> can't agree or disagree.

If I knew the Christian Platonists better, perhaps there's something
here?
>
> 3) An orthodox attitude to Jesus' earthly life and mission?
>
> By "orthodox" do you mean something that would agree with some
> modern Christian church? I ask this because everyone in Christian
> history thinks of themselves as "orthodox". I don't see this modern
> ideal generally presented in Christian Platonist writings... nor
> always completely disregarded in Gnostic writings. Perhaps I
> misunderstand your point, though.

How about, an attitude to Jesus' earthly life and mission which
derives from a literal reading of the canonical gospels?
>
> Thomas' view of Jesus is not in line with modern Christian thinking,
> though I don't know what we could use that to imply about Thomas.
>
> 4) Anti-gnostic qualities?
>
> Well, I guess that was my original question. I was looking for
> specific qualities that you could give for making a line. I
> understand that we both agree the line is fuzzy, so I am not trying
> to put you on the spot. I just hoped maybe you could give us
> something more specific for the sake of making the line all the same.

In 4) I meant that the writer has specifically rejected gnostic
interpretations, e.g. Origen on Heracleon.

It would help if you add some suggestions of your own. As you
commented above, it's easier to deconstruct than to construct.

Best Wishes

Andrew

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:

> Excellent points, Ken.  I'm thinking maybe it was "lacrosse."
>
> Did PMCV offer a prize for the winner of his challenge?  I'm sure he
> knows better than to send me a book by Davies, but maybe we could put
> some money on this—just to make it interesting?
>
> Gerry

Well, it looks as if you guessed correctly, Gerry.
Why wouldn't you want a book by Steve Davies? Steve is by no means
anti-Gnostic, it's just that he thinks that the Gospel of Thomas isn't
Gnostic. Before Davies wrote GTCW, most scholars were reading
developed Gnostic cosmology into Thomas, and dating it in the middle
of the second century. Davies' work opened up Thomas for historical
Jesus study. even if you are convinced that Thomas is Gnostic, Steve's
discussion of Thomas is very perceptive. The excerpt below from his
thomas FAQ describes his basic position:-

Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?

It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. If you mean by Gnostic the
belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that
they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon
the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas
is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag
Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of
this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a
religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil
archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil
physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic. This differentiation is
very important, because some scholars reason that if Thomas is Gnostic
(in the first sense) then it is Gnostic (in the second sense) and, as
they believe,Gnosticism (in the second sense) is a second or third
century heresy, they conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical,
late in date, and without very much historical value in regard to
Jesus of Nazareth.

http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.htm

Andrew

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "smithand44" <smithand44@...> wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
> I don't want to go too much further with this because it's a side
> issue and not very productive, but your example does clarify my
> difficulty with Ehrman's analogy. A baseball article which has roughly
> the same relationship to baseball as Thomas might have to Gnosticism
> could also be construed to not be about baseball at all. And your
> example actually proves the opposite--your excerpt looks like it's
> about baseball, but it isn't about baseball at all. If we allow that
> an Australian or British sports commentator might also say "wow" and
> that one can "catch" with feet or with a stick, and that "driving it
> home" is just a general piece of English language idiom, then the
> snippet might also have referred to soccer, rugby league, rugby union,
> soccer, Australian rules football, etc. Just as light, life, lions,
> protological language, knowing, flesh, soul, spirit, etc. are used in
> many traditions.
>

Andrew, while I may have my own issues regarding some of the ways in which Ehrman deals with Gnostic texts, I cannot understand how his incredibly simple analogy has apparently presented such a stumbling block.  Since you mentioned his book Lost Christianities already, let's go back and take a look at the reasoning behind his views on the Gospel of Thomas:

"Let me stress that I do not think that the Gospel of Thomas attempts to describe such a Gnostic view for its readers or to explicate its mythological undergirding.  I think that it presupposes some such viewpoint and that if readers read the text with these presuppositions in mind, they can make sense of almost all the difficult sayings of the book…." [pg. 60]

 

"This then is the Gospel of Thomas, a valuable collection of 114 sayings of Jesus, many of which may reflect the historical teachings of Jesus, but all of which appear to be framed within the context of later Gnostic reflections on the salvation that Jesus has brought.  Unlike the Gospels of the New Testament, in this Gospel Jesus does not talk about the God of Israel, about sin against God and the need for repentance.  In this Gospel it is not Jesus' death and resurrection that bring salvation.  In this Gospel there is no anticipation of a coming Kingdom of God on earth.

"Instead, this Gospel assumes that some humans contain the divine spark that has been separated from the realm of God and entrapped in this impoverished world of matter, and that it needs to be delivered by learning the secret teachings from above, which Jesus himself brings.  It is by learning the truth of this world and, especially, of one's one divine character, that one can escape this bodily prison and return to the realm of light whence one came, the Kingdom of God that transcends this material world and all that is in it."  [pp. 64–65]

Since its discovery and translation, there are many who claim GTh as their own.  As I pointed out before, one can find all sorts of ways in which people choose to interpret this text, just as there are those who will claim that the Gospel of Philip provides them with an authoritative, scriptural justification for their racist beliefs.  Whether folks wish to look for "Thomas Codes," read the work backwards in search of hidden insights, bolster their newage beliefs with the passages therein, throw up their hands to the mysterious ways of God when they fail to make many of the sayings conform to their orthodox views of Christianity, or otherwise persist in pounding some square peg into a round hole, Ehrman is simply saying that the enigmatic sayings of this gospel—as we know them in their extant Coptic form—are best understood when looked at from a Gnostic perspective.

 In The Gnostic Scriptures, Bentley Layton provides us with another text that we might consider:

I see in spirit that all are hung
I know in spirit that all are borne
Flesh hanging from soul
Soul clinging to air
Air hanging from upper atmosphere

Crops rushing forth from the deep
A babe rushing forth from the womb.
[pg. 248]

Should we assume that Hippolytus has misspoken when he attributes the preceding "Summer Harvest" to Valentinus?  Should we doubt that such imagery would have appealed to ancient Gnostics, even by the strictest definition of that classification?  Rather than giving consideration to its obvious figurative content, should this text be excluded from the category of "Gnosticism" on the basis that it does not contain passages resembling a detailed and explicit Gnostic Creed of sorts? 

Especially to that last question, Ehrman would undoubtedly offer a resounding "NO."  While it was a few years ago at a seminar that I first heard his sports analogy in the guise of America's favorite pastime, his metaphor has evidently changed now to something more in keeping with the principal athletic passion of our university.  You pointed out already that he elaborates on page 62 of The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot:

"Not every Gnostic writing recounts the Gnostic myths, just as modern Marxist writings do not always reprint the Communist Manifesto.  Most Gnostic texts simply presuppose the mythical basis of the religion and talk about other things.  That is why some scholars, wrongly in my view, have thought that a text such as the Gospel of Thomas, discovered at Nag Hammadi, or the Gospel of Mary, discovered fifty years earlier, are not actually Gnostic—because they do not lay out the Gnostic myth.  But these books do appear to presuppose some form of the myth.  I tell my students that to read these books you have to understand the mythological basis without having the author spell it out for you—just as reading the sports page requires you to understand the rules and history of basketball without the sportswriter telling you all about them before describing what happened in the fourth quarter of last night's game."

Again, I don't understand the difficulty in following Ehrman's assertion.  Will someone next tell us that they don't get what he means because they're not a communist?  How does that have any bearing at all on the simple point that he's making?  As for his second analogy there, would it not still hold true if he had oriented his example towards cricket?—or rugby?—or badminton?—or golf?  The point is that it is NOT necessary for someone to embellish with unnecessary redundancy when communicating thoughts to an audience that is familiar with the subject matter.  Honestly, it seems to me that the only way to discredit Ehrman's analogy would be to find an article detailing the fourth-quarter events of a particular basketball game wherein the author also felt compelled to offer a complete history of the sport along with a detailed summary of the rules of the game.  I think it is fairly clear that Ehrman is suggesting that such an article would be quite a foolish waste of a writer's time for coverage of a mere twelve minutes or less of play (not to mention the fact that no newspaper would likely be able to afford to print such a lengthy treatise!).  IOW, the likelihood of finding such evidence is slim.  Good luck if you insist on pursuing it. 

Gerry

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "smithand44" <smithand44@...> wrote:
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" gerryhsp@ wrote:
>
> > Excellent points, Ken. I'm thinking maybe it was "lacrosse."
> >
> > Did PMCV offer a prize for the winner of his challenge? I'm sure he
> > knows better than to send me a book by Davies, but maybe we could put
> > some money on this—just to make it interesting?
> >
> > Gerry
>
> Well, it looks as if you guessed correctly, Gerry.

Not at all, unless you considered that my merely paying attention to what PMCV had posted the day before put me in a position to make an "educated" guess.  If that's the case, then I'm definitely in favor of people making informed decisions.  ;-)

> Why wouldn't you want a book by Steve Davies? Steve is by no means
> anti-Gnostic, it's just that he thinks that the Gospel of Thomas isn't
> Gnostic. Before Davies wrote GTCW, most scholars were reading
> developed Gnostic cosmology into Thomas, and dating it in the middle
> of the second century. Davies' work opened up Thomas for historical
> Jesus study. even if you are convinced that Thomas is Gnostic, Steve's
> discussion of Thomas is very perceptive. The excerpt below from his
> thomas FAQ describes his basic position:-
>
> Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?
>
> It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. If you mean by Gnostic the
> belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that
> they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon
> the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas
> is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag
> Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of
> this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a
> religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil
> archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil
> physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic. This differentiation is
> very important, because some scholars reason that if Thomas is Gnostic
> (in the first sense) then it is Gnostic (in the second sense) and, as
> they believe,Gnosticism (in the second sense) is a second or third
> century heresy, they conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical,
> late in date, and without very much historical value in regard to
> Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.htm
>
> Andrew
>

It is primarily the methodology employed by Davies that I question, along with the bias that has likely distorted it.  If you think that "anti-Gnostic" is an inappropriate characterization, then perhaps it's that his "pro-orthodox" leanings have inspired him to tinker with the definition of Gnosticism and leap to foregone conclusions in order to justify his position. 

I'll tell you truthfully, Andrew, I tried—TRIED—to give Davies some credit.  I've gone back to his pages a number of times over the past couple of weeks, and I always leave with the impression that this is someone who just doesn't get it.  I've read Robinson's concerns regarding Davies' position.  I've witnessed Arnal's attempts at reasoning with him.  I'm not at all impressed by him.

While visiting civilization last week, I took a few minutes to stop at a bookstore.  I knew I wouldn't have time to give a fair evaluation of the book that you've been promoting here lately, but I did grab a copy of Davies' Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained just to look quickly at the sort of "annotations" and "explanations" he had to offer.  I opened the book to saying 28, and found a noteworthy observation.  Davies claimed that by saying "and I came to them in the flesh," [emphasis added] the Jesus in the text is clearly depicting a non-docetic, flesh-and-blood version of the savior—something that would indeed give room for one to consider something other than a Gnostic interpretation of that work.  Truly, it is that sort of critical thinking that we value here at this group.  The argument proposed by Davies would have been even more persuasive if that quote actually reflected what was written in the original text.  Unfortunately for him, it does not.  Let me offer these translations for consideration, and I'll similarly emphasize the major point of contrast in each:

"… and I appeared to them in flesh."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

"… and in flesh I appeared to them."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

"… and in flesh I appeared to them."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm

"… and in (the) flesh I appeared to them."
http://www.gospels.net/thomas/thomasimages/interlinearsayings/saying28int.html

"… And unto them I was shown forth incarnate;"
Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 385

Regardless of the English translations chosen for the samples above ("appear … flesh" or "show … incarnate"), all of them are faithful adaptations of the original text, whether utilizing the Coptic version of Thomas or the Greek fragments.  [For anyone interested, the first one most closely follows the Coptic.]  All of those examples can easily be used to support a docetic representation of Jesus as they stress that this was the manner in which he was "revealed" [Coptic=OUWN2] to people in this world.  None of them explicitly states, as Davies would have us believe, that Jesus "came" to earth in a physical body.  So, what are we to believe—that Lambdin, Patterson, Meyer, Robinson, Bernhard, Attridge, and Layton are all wrong?  I think not.  It may be time for Davies to consider a refresher course:

http://www.metalog.org/files/crum/486.gif

Honestly, Andrew, I am by no means a serious Coptic scholar, but when I pick up a book and turn to one saying out of a collection of one hundred fourteen and immediately run across a translation that is tainted with that kind of bias, do you really see any reason why I should be motivated to pursue that author's work further?  We have repeatedly stressed to members at this group that they look to such works with a critical eye, and I think that the reason is apparent.

Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit."

Gerry

I immediately retract that comment about no other Gnostic texts having
been found at Oxyrhynchus. I just happened to be browsing through
David Brons' pages and what should I see mentioned, but "A hymn to
Sophia A fragmentary hymn in Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2074"
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Writings.htm
It also seems that Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1081 has a fragment of the
Sophia of Jesus Christ. My apologies for my ignorance here. Does
anyone know of other Gnostic fragments among the Oxyrhynchus finds?

Best Wishes

Andrew

Hello, members.

If you have not seen your messages coming through during the last day
or two, please note that there is a Yahoo groups email backlog.

Please see the Yahoo note currently at the top of our homepage:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

Thank you for your patience.

Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
>
> Since its discovery and translation, there are many who claim GTh as
> their own.  As I pointed out before, one can find all sorts of ways in
> which people choose to interpret this text, just as there are those who
> will claim that the Gospel of Philip provides them with an
> authoritative, scriptural justification for their racist beliefs.
> Whether folks wish to look for "Thomas Codes," read the work
> backwards in search of hidden insights, bolster their newage beliefs
> with the passages therein, throw up their hands to the mysterious ways
> of God when they fail to make many of the sayings conform to their
> orthodox views of Christianity, or otherwise persist in pounding some
> square peg into a round hole, Ehrman is simply saying that the enigmatic
> sayings of this gospel—as we know them in their extant Coptic
> form—are best understood when looked at from a Gnostic perspective.
>

(No more discussion of the Ehrman analogy in my posts.)
I should point out that you are creating a false dichotomy here:
either one interprets Thomas from a Gnostic perspective, or one
interprets it from some other perspective, whether academic or not,
which, according to you, is akin to using The Gospel of Philip to
justify racism. (I'm intrigued by this: who did it, and is it the
reference to Hebrews, or the dichotomy between men and animals that is
used to justify racism?) The Gospel of Thomas is not inarguably
Gnostic. Even the surviving manuscript tradition suggests this. One
copy (NCHII tractate 2) survives in an undoubtedly Gnostic context,
while the fragments of the other three surviving copies (pOxy 1, 654,
655) are from the rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, in which were found
other fragments of noncanonical gospels, and a great deal of other
material, but no Gnostic literature at all.
Academic views of Thomas fall into four categories as far as I can see:-
1. Thomas is Gnostic.
2. Thomas is not Gnostic, it belongs to some other variety of early
Xianity.
3. Thomas is gnosticising, or moving towards a Gnostic form.
4. Thomas was originally non-Gnostic, but our recensions of Thomas
have been gnosticised.

My viewpoint has previously been somewhere around 2 (Stevan Davies'
view) maybe with a nod towards 3. Before I got caught up with Ehrman's
analogy (no fault but my own, I suppose), I was actually interested in
trying to rethink my view of Thomas. Perhaps Thomas is in its own
category of Gnosticism, even if it's not Sethian or Valentinian. Or
perhaps early Christianity itself might be considered Gnostic. Or
perhaps Thomas is actually Valentinian.

Andrew

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:

>
> It is primarily the methodology employed by Davies that I question,
> along with the bias that has likely distorted it.  If you think that
> "anti-Gnostic" is an inappropriate characterization, then
> perhaps it's that his "pro-orthodox" leanings have inspired
> him to tinker with the definition of Gnosticism and leap to foregone
> conclusions in order to justify his position.

I don't see any general "pro-orthodox" tendency in Davies' work, and
as far as I know he is an atheist with a strong curiosity for
religious traditions. In fact, he tends towards quirky viewpoints and
unorthodox (in the non-technical sense) positions. For instance, his
Jesus the Healer looked at the historical Jesus in terms of the
anthropology of spirit possession, and he was very interested in Earl
Doherty's mythic Jesus, and is fond of pointing out the contradictions
in the usual views of Christian origins.

>
> I'll tell you truthfully, Andrew, I tried—TRIED—to give
> Davies some credit.  I've gone back to his pages a number of times
> over the past couple of weeks, and I always leave with the impression
> that this is someone who just doesn't get it.  I've read
> Robinson's concerns regarding Davies' position.  I've
> witnessed Arnal's attempts at reasoning with him.  I'm not at
> all impressed by him.

I think there is a stubborn quality in Steve's position. But in the
last conversation I remember between Davies and Arnal on the gthomas
list, Arnal wrote that, after reading King's What is Gnosticism?, he
finally agreed that Thomas wasn't Gnostic. Steve has changed his
opinion on various issues connected with Thomas--he now thinks that
114 is integral to the collection and he might admit the Syrian
connection.
>
> While visiting civilization last week, I took a few minutes to stop at a
> bookstore.  I knew I wouldn't have time to give a fair evaluation of
> the book that you've been promoting here lately, but I did grab a
> copy of Davies' Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained just to
> look quickly at the sort of "annotations" and
> "explanations" he had to offer.  I opened the book to saying 28,
> and found a noteworthy observation.  Davies claimed that by saying
> "and I came to them in the flesh," [emphasis added] the Jesus in
> the text is clearly depicting a non-docetic, flesh-and-blood version of
> the savior—something that would indeed give room for one to consider
> something other than a Gnostic interpretation of that work.  Truly, it
> is that sort of critical thinking that we value here at this group.  The
> argument proposed by Davies would have been even more persuasive if that
> quote actually reflected what was written in the original text.
> Unfortunately for him, it does not.  Let me offer these translations for
> consideration, and I'll similarly emphasize the major point of
> contrast in each:
>
> "… and I appeared to them in flesh."
> http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html
> <http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html>
>
> "… and in flesh I appeared to them."
> http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
> <http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html>
>
> "… and in flesh I appeared to them."
> http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm
> <http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm>
>
> "… and in (the) flesh I appeared to them."
>
http://www.gospels.net/thomas/thomasimages/interlinearsayings/saying28in\
> t.html
>
<http://www.gospels.net/thomas/thomasimages/interlinearsayings/saying28i\
> nt.html>
>
> "… And unto them I was shown forth incarnate;"
> Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 385
>
> Regardless of the English translations chosen for the samples above
> ("appear … flesh" or "show … incarnate"), all of
> them are faithful adaptations of the original text, whether utilizing
> the Coptic version of Thomas or the Greek fragments.  [For anyone
> interested, the first one most closely follows the Coptic.]  All of
> those examples can easily be used to support a docetic representation of
> Jesus as they stress that this was the manner in which he was
> "revealed" [Coptic=OUWN2] to people in this world.  None of them
> explicitly states, as Davies would have us believe, that Jesus
> "came" to earth in a physical body.  So, what are we to
> believe—that Lambdin, Patterson, Meyer, Robinson, Bernhard,
> Attridge, and Layton are all wrong?  I think not.  It may be time for
> Davies to consider a refresher course:
>
> http://www.metalog.org/files/crum/486.gif
> <http://www.metalog.org/files/crum/486.gif>
>
> Honestly, Andrew, I am by no means a serious Coptic scholar, but when I
> pick up a book and turn to one saying out of a collection of one hundred
> fourteen and immediately run across a translation that is tainted with
> that kind of bias, do you really see any reason why I should be
> motivated to pursue that author's work further?  We have repeatedly
> stressed to members at this group that they look to such works with a
> critical eye, and I think that the reason is apparent.
>
> Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into
> a pit."
>
> Gerry
>

I actually didn't like Davies' translation in GTA&E, as it cuts
corners in places. You have identified a mistranslation and, I agree,
it's one that comes from his view of Thomas. Funnily enough, Davies'
closing comment on that is "In this saying, for a change, Thomas's
gospel takes the orthodox position on an issue." Steve in fact has no
Coptic, and worked from Mike Grondin's interlinear translation, but
Grondin's translation clearly indicates that OUWN2 should be
translated as "appeared", "revealed" or "made manifest".

OTOH, I don't really see this as referring to docetism at all, and the
following saying, which debates whether flesh came into being because
of spirit, or spirit because of the body, doesn't either. Meyer, for
instance, connects saying 28 with the incarnation of Wisdom too.

Best Wishes

Andrew

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
> Since its discovery and translation, there are many who claim GTh as
> their own.  As I pointed out before, one can find all sorts of ways in
> which people choose to interpret this text, just as there are those who
> will claim that the Gospel of Philip provides them with an
> authoritative, scriptural justification for their racist beliefs.
> Whether folks wish to look for "Thomas Codes," read the work
> backwards in search of hidden insights, bolster their newage beliefs
> with the passages therein, throw up their hands to the mysterious ways
> of God when they fail to make many of the sayings conform to their
> orthodox views of Christianity, or otherwise persist in pounding some
> square peg into a round hole, Ehrman is simply saying that the enigmatic
> sayings of this gospel—as we know them in their extant Coptic
> form—are best understood when looked at from a Gnostic perspective.
>
>   In The Gnostic Scriptures, Bentley Layton provides us with another
text
> that we might consider:
>
> I see in spirit that all are hung
> I know in spirit that all are borne
> Flesh hanging from soul
> Soul clinging to air
> Air hanging from upper atmosphere
>
> Crops rushing forth from the deep
> A babe rushing forth from the womb.
> [pg. 248]
>
> Should we assume that Hippolytus has misspoken when he attributes the
> preceding "Summer Harvest" to Valentinus?  Should we doubt that
> such imagery would have appealed to ancient Gnostics, even by the
> strictest definition of that classification?  Rather than giving
> consideration to its obvious figurative content, should this text be
> excluded from the category of "Gnosticism" on the basis that it
> does not contain passages resembling a detailed and explicit Gnostic
> Creed of sorts?
>
> Especially to that last question, Ehrman would undoubtedly offer a
> resounding "NO."  While it was a few years ago at a seminar that
> I first heard his sports analogy in the guise of America's favorite
> pastime, his metaphor has evidently changed now to something more in
> keeping with the principal athletic passion of our university.  You
> pointed out already that he elaborates on page 62 of The Lost Gospel of
> Judas Iscariot:
>
> "Not every Gnostic writing recounts the Gnostic myths, just as
> modern Marxist writings do not always reprint the Communist Manifesto.
> Most Gnostic texts simply presuppose the mythical basis of the religion
> and talk about other things.  That is why some scholars, wrongly in my
> view, have thought that a text such as the Gospel of Thomas, discovered
> at Nag Hammadi, or the Gospel of Mary, discovered fifty years earlier,
> are not actually Gnostic—because they do not lay out the Gnostic
> myth.  But these books do appear to presuppose some form of the myth.  I
> tell my students that to read these books you have to understand the
> mythological basis without having the author spell it out for
> you—just as reading the sports page requires you to understand the
> rules and history of basketball without the sportswriter telling you all
> about them before describing what happened in the fourth quarter of last
> night's game."
>
> Again, I don't understand the difficulty in following Ehrman's
> assertion.  Will someone next tell us that they don't get what he
> means because they're not a communist?  How does that have any
> bearing at all on the simple point that he's making?  As for his
> second analogy there, would it not still hold true if he had oriented
> his example towards cricket?—or rugby?—or badminton?—or
> golf?  The point is that it is NOT necessary for someone to embellish
> with unnecessary redundancy when communicating thoughts to an audience
> that is familiar with the subject matter.  Honestly, it seems to me that
> the only way to discredit Ehrman's analogy would be to find an
> article detailing the fourth-quarter events of a particular basketball
> game wherein the author also felt compelled to offer a complete history
> of the sport along with a detailed summary of the rules of the game.  I
> think it is fairly clear that Ehrman is suggesting that such an article
> would be quite a foolish waste of a writer's time for coverage of a
> mere twelve minutes or less of play (not to mention the fact that no
> newspaper would likely be able to afford to print such a lengthy
> treatise!).  IOW, the likelihood of finding such evidence is slim.  Good
> luck if you insist on pursuing it.
>
> Gerry

I don't insist on pursuing it. My last email on this subject was sent
3 days ago and I commented, "I don't want to go too much further with
this [the analogy] because it's a side issue and not very
productive..." You find the analogy convincing, I don't--and I'm not
going to take it any further.
As to the Valentinus Summer Harvest fragment, well, if it was found
out of context we might well be unable to determine whether it was
Gnostic.

Andrew

Hello, I,m new to this group. My English wont be perfect, my native
language is Spanish. Ive found that gnostic philosophycal tought system
has much to do with " A course in miracles" ideas. żWould it be correct
to say that this book (ACIM) is a gnostic text? I would like to hear
the opinions of those who have already read "a course in miracles" or
at least know its principles.

                           Thank you

I had been claiming that there were no Gnostic writings found in the
Oxyrhynchus papyri, apart from the Gospel of Thomas fragments, which
are arguably Gnostic, but then I decided to check. To my surprise I
came up with the following, some of which are debatably Gnostic. (The
Oxford University Oxyrhynchus Online site has photographs of most of
the fragments and transcriptions and translations of many.)

pOxy 1, 654, 655
These are the Greek Gospel of Thomas fragments

P.Oxy.L 3525
Gospel of Mary

P.Oxy 924
P.Oxy.XVI 2061
P.Oxy.XVI 2063
P.Oxy.XVI 2062
The above are "Gnostic Charms"

P.Oxy 1060
Gnostic Amulet

These magical charms and amulet are sometimes considered Gnostic by
virtue of the gods mentioned in the texts.

P.Oxy 2074
A.S. hunt thought that this was a fifth century "Apostrophe to Wisdom"
by Melito of Sardes. But David Brons claimed it as "A Hymn to Sophia",
an anonymous Valentinian writing, although I don't know what the
grounds were for this. See
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Writings.htm
Also, according to an indexed Google extract from a subscription only
article, there are "striking similarities between Melito and a corrupt
text preserved in a fifth century papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 2074)"

"The Homily on the Passion" by Melito Bishop of Sardis and Some
Fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel by Campbell Bonner, Journal of
Biblical Literature, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Mar., 1941),  pp. 81-88

Does anyone know anything further about P.Oxy 2074?

Best Wishes

Andrew

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Alejandro" <catarsis0@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello, I,m new to this group. My English wont be perfect, my native
> language is Spanish. Ive found that gnostic philosophycal tought
system
> has much to do with " A course in miracles" ideas. żWould it be
correct
> to say that this book (ACIM) is a gnostic text? I would like to
hear
> the opinions of those who have already read "a course in miracles"
or
> at least know its principles.
>
>                           Thank you
>



Hello, Alejandro.  I received _A Course in Miracles_ as a gift a few
years ago.  I admit that I have only read parts of the book, so I
might not be the best person to make an evaluation.  Yet, I haven't
seen anyone else jump in to respond at this point, so I'll make a few
comments and maybe there will be others who are familiar with this
text.

I find this book interesting if nothing else because it seems to
appeal to a wide variety of people, from liberal Christians (to the
consternation of some more conservative, orthodox Christians) to New
Age groups.  That makes me wonder how the book is being interpreted
and whose interpretation best represents the intent of the text.

As far as your question as to whether this is a gnostic text,... that
would depend on one's definition of "gnostic."  As you know, our
group is concerned with a historical focus of Gnosticism, so we would
look for things such as a variation of Platonist philosophy,
emanationist cosmology, a demiurge, an unknown, ineffable, infinite,
ultimate objective reality, etc.  Perhaps you or others would be in a
better position to answer how this might relate to _ACIM_.

This text approaches spirituality within a modern psychological
format.  That alone, in my opinion, should not be a major,
determining factor as to whether or not there could be at least a bit
of Gnostic leaning, but we also should be careful not to inaccurately
superimpose modern psychological ideas onto ancient texts in the
process of exegesis and comparison to modern writings.

Likewise, although _ACIM_ uses a conventional Christian framework,
the content of the text is not at all traditional orthodoxy.  How it
differs from Christian orthodoxy is a matter of interpretation, and
I'm not ready to make a definite analysis due to my cursory knowledge
of this course book.

From my partial reading, however, I do see what appears to be a
mentalistic monism.  In Chapter 18 when I read, "There is nothing
outside you,"... and when I see discussion that the world we see is
of our own making and does not exist, including instruction to deny
war and plane crashes as real (Workbook, Lesson 14), I wonder how far
we are to take this.  There is idealism, yes.  But is there also
subjective idealism?  Or something else?

Just some introductory thoughts.

Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "smithand44" <smithand44@...>
wrote:
>
> I had been claiming that there were no Gnostic writings found in the
> Oxyrhynchus papyri, apart from the Gospel of Thomas fragments, which
> are arguably Gnostic, but then I decided to check. To my surprise I
> came up with the following, some of which are debatably Gnostic.
(The
> Oxford University Oxyrhynchus Online site has photographs of most of
> the fragments and transcriptions and translations of many.)



Here's a Table of Contents for The Oxyrhynchus Papyri online, for
anyone interested:
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/tocframe.htm



> P.Oxy 2074
> A.S. hunt thought that this was a fifth century "Apostrophe to
Wisdom"
> by Melito of Sardes. But David Brons claimed it as "A Hymn to
Sophia",
> an anonymous Valentinian writing, although I don't know what the
> grounds were for this. See
> http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Writings.htm
> Also, according to an indexed Google extract from a subscription
only
> article, there are "striking similarities between Melito and a
corrupt
> text preserved in a fifth century papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy.
2074)"
>
> "The Homily on the Passion" by Melito Bishop of Sardis and Some
> Fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel by Campbell Bonner, Journal of
> Biblical Literature, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Mar., 1941),  pp. 81-88
>
> Does anyone know anything further about P.Oxy 2074?
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Andrew
>


Hi, Andrew.  What an assignment.  *lol*

I'm curious.  Did Arthur Hunt list his grounds for proposing Melito
as author?

"Apostrophe" could be a direct address to a personified abstraction,
and this address could very well be in the form of a hymn.  "Wisdom,"
of course, could be "Sophia."

As far as original authorship, I don't have enough information under
my belt to even suggest whether this might be Melito or some unknown
Valentinian.  Also, by the fifth century there possibly could have
been revisions from the original.  Did you find any translations
readily available?

Cari

The Oxyrhynchus Online Site just refers the reader to the printed
volumes of the Oxy papyri for a transcription and translation. I don't
know anything more on this yet.

Andrew

> Hi, Andrew.  What an assignment.  *lol*
>
> I'm curious.  Did Arthur Hunt list his grounds for proposing Melito
> as author?
>
> "Apostrophe" could be a direct address to a personified abstraction,
> and this address could very well be in the form of a hymn.  "Wisdom,"
> of course, could be "Sophia."
>
> As far as original authorship, I don't have enough information under
> my belt to even suggest whether this might be Melito or some unknown
> Valentinian.  Also, by the fifth century there possibly could have
> been revisions from the original.  Did you find any translations
> readily available?
>
> Cari
>

Hey all. Didn't mean to drop out of the conversation, but after our
Yahoo problems I had internet problems at home. I think I'm back now.

Andrew...

>>>I don't want to go too much further with this because it's a side
issue and not very productive, but your example does clarify my
difficulty with Ehrman's analogy.<<<

I realise that you have stated to both myself and Gerry that you
have lost interest in the Ehrman analogy. However, I do think there
is one point within the conversation that can't be completely set
aside. You stated to Gerry... "You find the analogy convincing, I
don't--and I'm not going to take it any further."... but I see the
essential point of the deconstruction as not something that is
either convincing or not, but instead as a question of whether it is
logically valid, or not. The implications would go far beyond the
question of Thomas, and into how well we can categorize any text.
Indeed, it even has implication in the debate over the very
term "Gnosticism" and whether such a thing existed in history at all.

>>>No, that was the Exegesis that I was saying might be Xian
Platonic. It was just an aside--my emails are full of sloppy
sentences and half-finished ideas.<<<

Well, if anyone would fault you there it would not be me *lol*.
Sometimes we simply have to post quickly and hope we make sense.

>>>Origen's demiurge is Christ, isn't it? What about the lack of an
"evil" demiurge. "Evil" isn't the right word, but you can see what I
mean here.<<<

Yes, I see your point. However, the Tripartite Tractate is generally
considered Gnostic, Valentinian to be specific, and the Demiurge in
that text is the Logos... and not evil. It isn't that I disagree
with your observation as a general tendency, but I think Dr Williams
did a good job deconstructing the Jonas paradigm that had pervaded
academic categorization for so long. Of course, once again it is
always easier to deconstruct, and I don't know that Dr Williams
really presents a more accurate categorical outline. Still, it
leaves us with the problem of why the Tripartite Tractate would be
Gnostic when Philo is not.... but that is another conversation I
guess.

>>>How about, an attitude to Jesus' earthly life and mission which
derives from a literal reading of the canonical gospels?<<<

Good point. I think there would be no debate that your observation
is one of the very things that prevents the Gospel of John from
being "Gnostic" (without the question of whether certain passages
were later additions). I think it could also be applied to Clement,
but I would be a little less sure about Origin. I would also be a
little less comfortable with the assumption that some Gnostics, like
the Valentinians, did not allow for a literal reading alongside the
allegorical ones. I think the point would have to be explored more
deeply before I would be comfortable accepting it as a general rule.

I also would like to not close the question of whether all Gnostics
were even "Christian" or whether there may have been Jewish Gnostic
movements.

>>>In 4) I meant that the writer has specifically rejected gnostic
interpretations, e.g. Origen on Heracleon.<<<

That could be an important point. Of course, groups we
call "Gnostic" also disagreed with other groups we call "Gnostic".
That could get pretty messy, but surely you are right that we should
at least think about it.

>>>It would help if you add some suggestions of your own. As you
commented above, it's easier to deconstruct than to construct.<<<

Yes, I guess I should not simply take the easy path, eh? Ok then.
Although I have suggested categorical attributes for Gnosticism in
the forum in the past, I don't know if they really help us much when
it comes to Thomas. I mean, once we have some agreement as to what
it even means to BE Gnostic, we have the daunting task of trying to
see if any particular text fits all the attributes. Since I think
they ALL must be present to be sure, I don't give any of them a
greater emphasis. These attributes are; soteriology,
cosmogeny/cosmology, and cultural syncratism (including the specific
historical context). I would also tend to include esoteric
methodology (including ritual and textual hermeneutics), but I fully
admit that it may be overly difficult to apply to the historical
evidence.

Within that basic set of attributes, which I do understand is a bit
too vague, I try to pick out the things that are unique to
Gnosticism before I give consideration to attributes that may appear
in other places. If I find an attribute in some other movement, then
it seems to me that at the very least the attribute cannot be
definative alone, but only in context.

Well, from what I understand of your posts so far I would guess that
we probably don't disagree here. In theory it is all simple academic
method. I guess the problem is more specific. I think I shouldn't
write a book here. I realize I have not given the level of depth
needed to fully answer your question, but I thought I would simply
get the subject started and allow for others to jump in if they want
as well.

I would like to jump in and give a quick personal perspective on
some of the points you raise with other people here. You asked
Gerry...

>>>Steve is by no means anti-Gnostic, it's just that he thinks that
the Gospel of Thomas isn't Gnostic. Before Davies wrote GTCW, most
scholars were reading developed Gnostic cosmology into Thomas, and
dating it in the middle of the second century.<<<

I have only had a quick look at some of Davies' work, but one thing
that seemed to jump out at me is that he connected his earlier date
WITH the notion of whether or not the text is Gnostic. Sometimes it
comes off as if his reason for questioning the Gnostic origin IS to
present an early date. This simply doesn't work. The two issues are
completely unconnected.

Perhaps rather than being genuinely against the study of Gnosticism,
this may come from a slight laps in critical perspective or a
misunderstanding about Gnostic history on his part?

>>>But in the last conversation I remember between Davies and Arnal
on the gthomas list, Arnal wrote that, after reading King's What is
Gnosticism?, he finally agreed that Thomas wasn't Gnostic.<<<

King's reason for questioning the categorization of "Gnosticism" is
very different from what I have read in Davies. I don't know Arnal's
intent, but thinking about Dr King Arnal's admission could almost
seem like a joke at Dr Davies' expense (maybe not a nice thing to
do, and maybe not so good for the conversation). Or maybe it is
Arnal's misunderstanding, I don't know. Dr King argues that there is
no such thing as "Gnosticism", so the point simply can't be
connected to the issue of Thomas, specifically.

>>>OTOH, I don't really see this as referring to docetism at all,
and the following saying, which debates whether flesh came into
being because of spirit, or spirit because of the body, doesn't
either.<<<

In my view it isn't whether it is about docetism so much as the fact
that it can be taken more than one way. In other words, the attempt
to make it wholely about the body doesn't work any better. You have
agreed that the translation he presents is flawed, and when that
translation is key to his position we have a real problem. I think
at the very least the issue must be seen as still open. Other
passages may hold more value in the debate.

PMCV

The foundation of The Inquisition began with the Heresiologists and
their polemics against the Gnostics.  The tools of the Totalitarian
Regimes-- including thought crime, instilling horror in the population
and public confessions, just to name a few—were borrowed from the
Church Father in their wars against the Cathars.  Later in history, in
a very conscious way, these procedures were utilized by modern fascist
and socialist regimes.  There has always been an intellectual movement
to banish the Gnostics.  We reveal that this movement is alive as
ever.  It's a chilling reality

Arthur Versluis, author of `The New Inquisition', `Restoring Paradise:
Western Esotericism, Literature, and Consciousness' and `Awakening the
Contemplative Spirit', editor of Esoterica and Professor of American
Studies at Michigan State University joins `Coffee, Cigarettes, &
Gnosis' this Sunday, February 11 at 3 PM PST/5 PM CST/6 PM EST at
Freethoughtmedia.com.  Just click the `ON AIR' button under the banner
(if there is ever a problem simply go to the direct feed at
http://infidelguy.primcast.com:8313/).

Topics Discussed (what more can I say after the introduction?):

--How the Heresiologist's duality of `right thinking' (Orthodoxy) and
`wrong choice' (Heresy) were the foundation for the Inquisitional
pathology and Totalitarian mind set for centuries to come.
--How the crusades against the Cathars crystallized the Inquisition
and Totalitarian mind set by creating a system of victimology against
one's own population.
--Clear evidence that many of Totalitarian leaders of the Twentieth
Century were directly influenced by intellectuals who believed in the
Inquisitional model and the dangers of any Gnostic ideology.
--How Gnosticism, from the Classic Ages to modern times, has always
been one of the boogie men for those seeking strict order in their
societies.
--Even though religion went from the hunter to the hunted in modern
times, the Inquisitional model was still used with the Gnostics in mind.
--Sifting through the terror of the `Satanic Panic' of the Eighties
and the secret Christian organizations that to this day are attempting
to quell Freethinkers and the Gnostic revival.
--A look into some Gnostic secret societies that are ensconced in the
Eastern Churches of the world that have avoided the eyes of the heresy
hunters for centuries..


It's not a matter of `it can happen again', but `it is happening and
will happen again'.  We reveal to you the importance of being vigilant
under the long shadows of the Church Fathers and their eternal
heresy-hunting by this nasty needle we thread.

Next week it's Aleister Crowley.  So lock up your muses and get your
old Ozzie Osbourne t-shirts out.

Abraxas

Well, I know that Miguel is aware that we try to open these topics
up to commentary, criticism, observation, and I guess that no one
here would be particularly shocked that this particular one would
cause me to raise my eyebrow a bit and feel the need to comment
*lol*.

Unfortunately I was unable to catch the show (as I was with the
Turner interview, though I did hear at least part of the latter). I
did want to, but because I couldn't I am not able to comment on the
show itself... only the subject matter. I think the subject if VERY
important, though, because it raises the issue of a particular
misunderstanding that many modern readers have IMO.

To start with, I do wish to make the disclaimer that I am not very
familiar with Dr Versluis' work. I have only thumbed through a
couple articles that he did, and he seemed to be a sober and
critical thinking... at least at a quick glance. I notice that his
specialty is a bit wider than Gnosticism, and covers many forms of
esotericism (including modern forms). My observations have nothing
to do with him in particular (since I don't know how he presented
the subject)... just the subject matter at hand.

My only purpose is to offer a couple of counterpoints so that we can
look at the subject matter here from more than one angle...
hopefully eventually finding a critical middle. I don't particularly
LIKE defending the church fathers *lol*, but we don't want to
present the topic from ONLY a sensationalist perspective either. SO,
the devil's advocate.....

>>>--How the Heresiologist's duality of `right thinking' (Orthodoxy)
and `wrong choice' (Heresy) were the foundation for the Inquisitional
pathology and Totalitarian mind set for centuries to come.
--How the crusades against the Cathars crystallized the Inquisition
and Totalitarian mind set by creating a system of victimology against
one's own population.
--Clear evidence that many of Totalitarian leaders of the Twentieth
Century were directly influenced by intellectuals who believed in the
Inquisitional model and the dangers of any Gnostic ideology.
--How Gnosticism, from the Classic Ages to modern times, has always
been one of the boogie men for those seeking strict order in their
societies.
--Even though religion went from the hunter to the hunted in modern
times, the Inquisitional model was still used with the Gnostics in
mind.
--Sifting through the terror of the `Satanic Panic' of the Eighties
and the secret Christian organizations that to this day are
attempting to quell Freethinkers and the Gnostic revival.
--A look into some Gnostic secret societies that are ensconced in the
Eastern Churches of the world that have avoided the eyes of the
heresy hunters for centuries..<<<

I think no one can deny that the people in power have often misused
it. Before the Inquisition existed, Roman rulers tried to stamp out
the Greek mysteries. At times, factions of Christianity have been
far from blameless in this regard. Of course, on the other end there
is a spectrum of people who love to be misunderstood martyrs for
their cause (I will avoid speculation about the psychological
mechanics at this point). For example, consider how some (generally
younger) modern Wiccans seemed so keen to talk about the "Burning
Times". The whole idea that the "Catholic Inquisition" burned
millions of witches simply is not something that has turned out to
be true, and even more thoughtful Wiccans realize this.

I don't think the ancient Gnostics thought of themselves via this
kind of victimology, but in the past we have had some others in this
forum who have seemed to feel this is the case (though I would
challenge it). Gnostic sources could be just as brutal in their
attack of what they viewed as heterodoxy. I think that we must be
careful not to make the mistake of setting up "Orthodoxy" as a
boogieman for for a construct of Gnosticism that never existed.

I think another misunderstanding that is common with us modern would-
be Gnostics is the growing desire to paint the ancient Gnostics as
some kind of mystical anarchists in line with popular postmodernist
thinking. Just as I would debate Jonas for trying to make them the
ancient Existentialists, I think the attempt to make the Gnostics
into the ancient New Age movement is misguided.

In opposition to this view, I would point out that in some ways the
ancient Gnostics were sometimes quite a bit MORE strict and
structured than the "Orthodox" church. At least some of them seemed
to view themselves as a HIGHLY intellectual movement in contrast to
the overly free UNthinking masses of pagan (and I mean "pagan" in
the literal usage) Christianity that we now often think of as
orthodox (or "Orthodox"). It is possible that the reason some of
them fizzled is because they were TOO structured and TOO exclusive,
while the "Orthodox" were frankly more open to a wider set of people.

How many here think they would stick with a traditional Gnostic
system if they had the chance?

Point, counterpoint?

PMCV

Hello Cari, thanks for your comments. See, I found some similar ideas
between both systems, gnostic and ACIM. For example:

1)The world and the whole material cosmos is not God creation, but a
sort of fabrication based on a first mistake or error. (done by
something else)

2)Knowledge and salvation are related, faith or belief is not enough,
there is something to be done or re-learned.

3) In both systems there is strong dualism. (light and dark, true and
false, etc)

4) We humans are traped in kind of  prison.

5) They both do talk about emanationism.

6) The God of vengance and fear in fisrt testament is not the supreme
God

7) They both talk about the posibility of freedom from the word when
re-integration with God ocurrs.

I could find you more similaritys if you want...

Now, this book was written by a psychologyst, (who claims was a
atheist and sudenly began experiencing revaltions ( symbolical
visions) ans hear an inner dialogue whos said to be Crist or the Holy
spirit inspiration). Most of folowers think this is the third
testament, which comes to explain the meaning of the first two.

I,ve been reading this book ACIM and Hans Jonas work on gnosticism
and also some direct gnostic texts. I do believe there are strong
correspondences between them. This book could be a gnostic one, maybe
not historical, but in content or principle. They do fit ideological.
There is no demiurge in it but it talks about the Ego being the maker
of the world. The ego, I read, is the sick, confused and rebel aspect
of the Mind, not of God, but of His Son.

I also see similaritys between this two and the vedanta
philosophy...but thats another topic.


Again, thanks for your comments

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Alejandro" <catarsis0@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Cari, thanks for your comments. See, I found some similar
ideas
> between both systems, gnostic and ACIM. For example:
>
> 1)The world and the whole material cosmos is not God creation, but
a
> sort of fabrication based on a first mistake or error. (done by
> something else)
>
> 2)Knowledge and salvation are related, faith or belief is not
enough,
> there is something to be done or re-learned.
>
> 3) In both systems there is strong dualism. (light and dark, true
and
> false, etc)
>
> 4) We humans are traped in kind of  prison.
>
> 5) They both do talk about emanationism.
>
> 6) The God of vengance and fear in fisrt testament is not the
supreme
> God
>
> 7) They both talk about the posibility of freedom from the word
when
> re-integration with God ocurrs.
>
> I could find you more similaritys if you want...
>
> Now, this book was written by a psychologyst, (who claims was a
> atheist and sudenly began experiencing revaltions ( symbolical
> visions) ans hear an inner dialogue whos said to be Crist or the
Holy
> spirit inspiration). Most of folowers think this is the third
> testament, which comes to explain the meaning of the first two.
>
> I,ve been reading this book ACIM and Hans Jonas work on gnosticism
> and also some direct gnostic texts. I do believe there are strong
> correspondences between them. This book could be a gnostic one,
maybe
> not historical, but in content or principle. They do fit
ideological.
> There is no demiurge in it but it talks about the Ego being the
maker
> of the world. The ego, I read, is the sick, confused and rebel
aspect
> of the Mind, not of God, but of His Son.
>
> I also see similaritys between this two and the vedanta
> philosophy...but thats another topic.
>
>
> Again, thanks for your comments
>


You're welcome, Alejandro.  I'm sorry I can't give a more qualified
opinion, since I would need to complete reading the book first.  Then
I might better be able to understand how much modern psychology plays
a role in these writings.

It's true that one can encounter similarities and common terminology
among various spiritual traditions, yet still find enough differences
to make them unique in their own way.  The differences are often
found in how terms are defined and used symbolically and how various
concepts *function* within a given cosmology as a whole, for
instance.

I find it interesting when you say that most followers think of ACIM
as a third testament explaining the meaning of the first two,
especially if, as you say, "The world and the whole material cosmos
is not God creation, but a sort of fabrication based on a first
mistake or error."  I wonder how mainstream Christians would
reconcile this and other differences.  Then again, it's not uncommon
to find people who desire to interpret, whether consciously or not,
others' writings in terms of their own belief systems.

Jonas tended to have a personal existentialist bent when describing
the Gnostics.  You also might want to read some more modern
scholarship on Gnosticism, too, for comparison (for instance, Karen
King; Kurt Rudolph - _Gnosis_; or even Michael Williams).

Feel free to continue using your critical eye while joining us in our
group conversations, Alejandro.

Cari

Hello,

I'm not new to Gnosticism, but I am new to the Course in Miracles
material, which I begrudgingly began examining this week. I
immediately made the connection with gnostic thought in general,
based upon some of the same points you've listed here. I have since
discovered a book by Kenneth Wapnick that specifically addresses
this subject at length by comparing some of the Nag Hammadi texts
with the ACIM material. I plan to read it, as I am pretty compelled
by the whole thing. Anyway, I wish I knew the title of the book, but
if you do a web search for "wapnick gnostic" or something like that,
you'll find it. It's on Amazon, also.

Peace,
Q.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Alejandro" <catarsis0@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Hello Cari, thanks for your comments. See, I found some similar
ideas
> between both systems, gnostic and ACIM. For example:
>
> 1)The world and the whole material cosmos is not God creation, but
a
> sort of fabrication based on a first mistake or error. (done by
> something else)
>
> 2)Knowledge and salvation are related, faith or belief is not
enough,
> there is something to be done or re-learned.
>
> 3) In both systems there is strong dualism. (light and dark, true
and
> false, etc)
>
> 4) We humans are traped in kind of  prison.
>
> 5) They both do talk about emanationism.
>
> 6) The God of vengance and fear in fisrt testament is not the
supreme
> God
>
> 7) They both talk about the posibility of freedom from the word
when
> re-integration with God ocurrs.
>

Blessings and wingwhispers, Dorina!!
I would say (as a gnostic and kabbalist) that there is no
transendant 'God', (Good, maybe), because to say 'god' of any sort
falls into the fallacy of other religions, always trying to seperate
and alienate rather than base teachings on a connection of all of us
to the ONE, which resides within us.  Kabbalists call is 'the Light',
and altho many Kabbalists speak of God, it isn't in the context of
Gods such as YWHW, Allah, Odin, whatever.  You might say the
Gnostic's 'god' truly created the 'gods' most humans worship, albeit
inadvertantly.  As gnostics we know that the shaper(s) of the
material world and Saboath, god of the forces who reigns now over
the 'Matrix', to be Archons, and not the end-all Source.  There is a
transcendant Source, I refer to as the ONE, also known as Ain Sof,
the Great Unmanifest, or the Ground of Being.  This is were your
spirit originated, your mind was formed as a result of the 'mixing'
of the spiritual matter into the crude, physical matter, and it is
your mind which both traps and frees you from this Matrix.
This source, the ONE, doesn't require prayer, or blind obedience, or
even faith- it requires the individual to realize the truth for
themselves, and it would have a transforming effect on them and thier
lives.  Did me!
You see, we don't need a god or savior to save us from the suffering
of this world.  Suffering will end when we humans end it, when we are
united in this goal, and not before.  And this will not come until we
as humans realize our ultimate part to play, our connection to the
ONE which is love.  That is what unites and connects us, and would
evolve us to do what is needed to end suffering.

"You suffer and die because you love what decieves you," Gospel of
Mary.

So you see, it is not a matter of  aloofness or uncaring.  The Good,
the ONE, the great Unmainifest, cannot do evil, even for the sake of
good.  And that would severely limit your available choices, would it
not?  I remember hearing the story of Cain and Abel when I was young,
and really having a problem with the what I now know to be the
demiurge for 'letting' Cain kill Abel.  Now I know that what happens
on this world is not the result of the Good, the ONE, but he result
of a spiritual and cosmic mistake which caused the formation of the
physical world in the first place.  Study the creation 'story' of the
Manicheeians, IMHO it mirrors the gnostic 'stories' found in the
gnostic texts.  If the ONE, the Father of the Entirety to use an idea
from the Apoc. of John, is uncorruptability, and we live in a world
where our very bodies and all we see and experience is based in
corruptability, with the exception of the epinoia, or 'life force'
which moves the dead, corruptable matter through living, then what
effect could such a 'being' have, reguardless of deciphering the
desire of something we cannot fathom anyway?  This world, this
matrix, is a crude classroom where we are placed to learn.  Learn
what?  The truth, which must be discovered for yourself. You can be
shown the doorway, but only you can walk thru the door.
whirled and inner peas
DarkChylde


Gnothi Seauton
**Love thy enemies.  Messes with their heads!**



--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Dorina S" <DorinasLib@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I just joined this group, but have been studying about Gnosticism
for the past year. I understand there is no True Divinity who created
the material world, but what I do not understand is whether there is
a Divinity outside of this Matrix. Some say there is a Transcendent
God.
>
> The information I read seems to conflict, and if there is a God/s,
then why is He/She/It/They so aloof to our plight and does not help
us by putting an end to all this? The biggest complaint of secular
humanists is that if there was really a God, there would be no
suffering in this world. So how does a Gnostic seeker answer that
there "is" a God "beyond" creation, but that this Divinity does not
end suffering, either?
>
> If the answer is that there is no God anywhere, within or without,
then where did our spirit being originate?
>
> Thanks,
> Dorina S
>

Hello Dorina,

The problem of "if there is a God, then why doesn't he save me", or
"end suffering" will never go away with some people.  People always
seem to want a benevolent dictator.  They are also sold on the idea
that an absolutely good God would be running a world that is happy,
safe and fun.  But there is error, and people will tend to choose the
negative path in order to satisfy sensory pleasures, or the desire for
power.  They, in turn, have created for themselves a situation which
needs to be corrected.  In the interest of their own self development
and spiritual evolution, there must be a meeting of one's own negative
choices and actions.  We create our own suffering by choosing error,
which is freely offered to us by the illusions of the archons.

As long as we continue to choose error and remain ignorant of the
forces which seek to hold us back, we will remain on this wheel going
around and around, questioning the existence of a greater force which
COULD help us if he wanted to.  Simply removing the consequences of
our actions in order to alleviate our discomfort at having to face
ourselves, is not good, helpful or loving.  This being said, there are
a myriad of situations and circumstances which are difficult to
discuss and philosophize about when it comes to the idea of karma.  I
have been at the unbearable end of this myself, so I completely
understand the arguments that people will generally hurl against the
idea of having generated the issue.

I myself, do not question the existence of a God beyond the realm of
the demiurge.  Christ, as the gnostic revealer, taught that there is a
father hidden from us by the machinations of the demiurge, and our
initiation into gnosis will save us from ignorance of our true origin
and place in the universe.

I used to wonder why Native Americans called the Great Spirit
"Grandfather", when we call God "Father".  A grandfather created your
parent, the parent creates you.  The hidden Father generated the
Sophia who is the mother of the gods, the aeons.  This is the
beginning of our generation.

Well, sorry this got to be so long.  I hope it has been helpful.  God
luck.

Celeste