Re: Resonating scripture
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
> I can at least say with certainty, however, what it was upon firstdiscovering Gnostic thought that brought me to the realization that I
had come home: The Gospel of Thomas-to be specific, #17 was among
the sayings that impressed me the most:
>has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human
> Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear
>especially since it has parallels in the Old and New Testaments
> Odd that such a verse should have moved me more than others,
(Isaiah 64:4; I Corinthians 2:9), and surely elsewhere. It's not as
if I hadn't encountered something like it before. Considering that
passage in context, I might attribute its impact on me to the
cumulative effect of having perused all the logia of the GTh. Elaine
Pagels also points out in The Gnostic Paul that such a phrase would
probably have been uttered to an initiate being welcomed into the
Gnostic fold, so perhaps it was simply appropriate that its
significance has remained with me since that first reading.
>This is such a powerful saying, Gerry. The words indeed indicate
that which can only be reached through an
You wrote about "fascination with the Word, whether written or
vocalized." A variation of this same passage also inspired me deeply
even before I ever read _The Gospel of Thomas_. Years ago I sang for
the first time an aria, "Eye hath not seen," from A. R. Gaul's
oratorio, _The Holy City_, most likely based on the verses from
Isaiah and 1 Corinthians you mentioned.
"Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither have enter'd into the
heart of man the things which God, which God hath prepar'd for them
that love Him, for them that love Him ..."
It didn't matter that I was singing in an orthodox Christian church
to an orthodox congregation. I still felt that "connectedness" you
describe. Very moving...
> Because moving away from Latin as the scholars' lingua francaOthers would argue that the movement INTO Latin as the
> was the greatest error throughout the history of European culture.
> This has already been noted by A. Schopenhauer.
scholar's "lingua franca" was the greatest mistake of western
culture... this would include the Greek-speaking composers of much of
the Nag Hammadi library, as well as it's Coptic speaking translators.
Often times both of these languages were very specifically used as
outposts of resistance against Latin cultural oppression. In northern
Egypt the Greek speaking community was second only to the Jews for
their reputation for insurrection (in Alexandria the Greek community
lived just to the south of the walled Jewish quarter, and the
cultural exchange equalled the resentment of occupation. This is the
venue in which Gnosticism was created).
None of these books we are talking about were written in Latin, so
gumming up the works with yet a fourth (unrelated) language in the
mix seemed rather strange is all. Don't get me wrong, Latin is a
wonderful language, and one that is very useful to the scientific
community. It is also something like speaking Hebrew at a Palistinian
knitting club. I have no problem if you want to use latin... knock
yourself out our uptight friend. Now, if we were talking about
Catholicism it would seem perfectly obvious that you should use Latin.
By the way..... Schopenhauer wasn't Gnostic either.