Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Incoming Message

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    Hey Josh. Yahoo stopped allowing attachments some time ago, even though the group s settings still show that they re permitted. What were you trying to send
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 14 2:11 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Josh.

      Yahoo stopped allowing attachments some time ago, even though the
      group's settings still show that they're permitted.

      What were you trying to send us? Especially in that it was a zipped
      file, people probably would have wanted some idea before opening it
      anyway.

      Gerry
    • David Gallardo
      The attachment was a virus (actually, technically, it s a worm that spreads as a trojan horse). Furthermore, the email wasn t necessarily from Josh. The email
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 14 2:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        The attachment was a virus (actually, technically, it's a worm that
        spreads as a trojan horse). Furthermore, the email wasn't necessarily
        from Josh. The email propogates by forging email addresses from the
        machine it infects, so it likely means that someone else on this list is
        infected.

        I'm not sure how the attachment got through Yahoo, but I notice that my
        ISP stripped it and added a message notifying me that it had done so.

        The purpose of these viruses is to turn your machine into a "zombie": it
        will listen for further commands from whoever wrote the virus or wait to
        automatically take some kind of action in the future (or both). This can
        be to launch a denial-of-service attack on a website (like Microsoft),
        or to distribute spam or other undesirable (and potentially illegal)
        material. It appears that criminal groups are involved in some cases,
        possibly selling the distributed computer power that they capture in
        this way.

        This serves as an unfortunate warning that you shouldn't be opening any
        attachments, even if it appears to be from someone you know, unless you
        are expecting it, and know exactly what it is. Sometimes these messages
        also appear to be official-sounding and direct you to open the
        attachment for further information.

        Obtaining and running antivirus software is a really good idea. There's
        a free antivirus package available here: http://www.free-av.com/.

        Sorry to respond at such length on such an off-topic. I'll go back to
        listening now...

        @D

        --
        David Gallardo | Software consultant | Author
        Java, C/C++, database development |Internationalization
        Author: Java Oracle Database Development
        Lead author: Eclipse in Action: A guide for the Java developer
      • lady_caritas
        ... [...] ... to ... David,... oh please, no apologies necessary. Thank you so much for the information! I always enjoy your posts, so feel free to comment
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 14 3:07 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, David Gallardo <david@g...> wrote:
          > The attachment was a virus (actually, technically, it's a worm that
          > spreads as a trojan horse).

          [...]

          > Sorry to respond at such length on such an off-topic. I'll go back
          to
          > listening now...
          >
          > @D
          >
          > --
          > David Gallardo | Software consultant | Author
          > Java, C/C++, database development |Internationalization
          > Author: Java Oracle Database Development
          > Lead author: Eclipse in Action: A guide for the Java developer


          David,... oh please, no apologies necessary. Thank you so much for
          the information!

          I always enjoy your posts, so feel free to comment *after* all that
          listening, y'hear? :-)


          Cari
        • Gerry
          ... necessarily ... list is ... that my ... so. ... a zombie : it ... wait to ... This can ... Microsoft), ... illegal) ... cases, ... in ... any ... you ...
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 14 3:46 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, David Gallardo <david@g...> wrote:
            > The attachment was a virus (actually, technically, it's a worm that
            > spreads as a trojan horse). Furthermore, the email wasn't
            necessarily
            > from Josh. The email propogates by forging email addresses from the
            > machine it infects, so it likely means that someone else on this
            list is
            > infected.
            >
            > I'm not sure how the attachment got through Yahoo, but I notice
            that my
            > ISP stripped it and added a message notifying me that it had done
            so.
            >
            > The purpose of these viruses is to turn your machine into
            a "zombie": it
            > will listen for further commands from whoever wrote the virus or
            wait to
            > automatically take some kind of action in the future (or both).
            This can
            > be to launch a denial-of-service attack on a website (like
            Microsoft),
            > or to distribute spam or other undesirable (and potentially
            illegal)
            > material. It appears that criminal groups are involved in some
            cases,
            > possibly selling the distributed computer power that they capture
            in
            > this way.
            >
            > This serves as an unfortunate warning that you shouldn't be opening
            any
            > attachments, even if it appears to be from someone you know, unless
            you
            > are expecting it, and know exactly what it is. Sometimes these
            messages
            > also appear to be official-sounding and direct you to open the
            > attachment for further information.
            >
            > Obtaining and running antivirus software is a really good idea.
            There's
            > a free antivirus package available here: http://www.free-av.com/.
            >
            > Sorry to respond at such length on such an off-topic. I'll go back
            to
            > listening now...
            >
            > @D
            >
            > --
            > David Gallardo | Software consultant | Author
            > Java, C/C++, database development |Internationalization
            > Author: Java Oracle Database Development
            > Lead author: Eclipse in Action: A guide for the Java developer



            Thanks, David.

            Your lengthy warning is much appreciated. I wasn't sure if this
            might be the situation or not, but the message was certainly not like
            Josh's usual, thoughtful, self-explanatory posts. Given that it
            contained both his address and ours, it seemed like his address book
            was the most likely source, but as you point out, everyone would do
            well to check their systems.

            Gerry
          • Mike Leavitt
            Hello David ... My ISP stopped the entire message. No encripted Zip files are allowed due to this trojan. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 14 4:42 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello David

              On 14-Mar-04, you wrote:

              > The attachment was a virus (actually, technically, it's a worm that
              > spreads as a trojan horse). Furthermore, the email wasn't
              > necessarily from Josh. The email propogates by forging email
              > addresses from the machine it infects, so it likely means that
              > someone else on this list is infected.
              >
              > I'm not sure how the attachment got through Yahoo, but I notice that
              > my ISP stripped it and added a message notifying me that it had done
              > so.

              My ISP stopped the entire message. No encripted Zip files are allowed
              due to this trojan.

              Regards
              --
              Mike Leavitt ac998@...
            • alexandria_4us
              Thanks for the site, it detected a trojan horse on my machine. GREAT! just friggin great! very, very sorry if this has caused anyone any grief :( take care
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 14 6:04 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for the site, it detected a trojan horse on my machine.
                GREAT! just friggin great! very, very sorry if this has caused
                anyone any grief :(

                take care all

                Marina


                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, David Gallardo <david@g...> wrote:
                > The attachment was a virus (actually, technically, it's a worm that
                > spreads as a trojan horse). Furthermore, the email wasn't
                necessarily
                > from Josh. The email propogates by forging email addresses from the
                > machine it infects, so it likely means that someone else on this
                list is
                > infected.
                >
                > I'm not sure how the attachment got through Yahoo, but I notice
                that my
                > ISP stripped it and added a message notifying me that it had done
                so.
                >
                > The purpose of these viruses is to turn your machine into
                a "zombie": it
                > will listen for further commands from whoever wrote the virus or
                wait to
                > automatically take some kind of action in the future (or both).
                This can
                > be to launch a denial-of-service attack on a website (like
                Microsoft),
                > or to distribute spam or other undesirable (and potentially
                illegal)
                > material. It appears that criminal groups are involved in some
                cases,
                > possibly selling the distributed computer power that they capture
                in
                > this way.
                >
                > This serves as an unfortunate warning that you shouldn't be opening
                any
                > attachments, even if it appears to be from someone you know, unless
                you
                > are expecting it, and know exactly what it is. Sometimes these
                messages
                > also appear to be official-sounding and direct you to open the
                > attachment for further information.
                >
                > Obtaining and running antivirus software is a really good idea.
                There's
                > a free antivirus package available here: http://www.free-av.com/.
                >
                > Sorry to respond at such length on such an off-topic. I'll go back
                to
                > listening now...
                >
                > @D
                >
                > --
                > David Gallardo | Software consultant | Author
                > Java, C/C++, database development |Internationalization
                > Author: Java Oracle Database Development
                > Lead author: Eclipse in Action: A guide for the Java developer
              • apx0n
                Hi Group, Well what an unusual way to get called back to a message board I thoroughly enjoy! I take it from the posts on the OT: virus topic that the
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Group,

                  Well what an unusual way to get called back to a message board I
                  thoroughly enjoy! I take it from the posts on the "OT: virus" topic
                  that the attachment was not sent from my computer, though please let
                  me know if you start seeing other odd emails claiming to be from me.

                  While I'm here, I'm looking for materials on the Gospel of Thomas -
                  ok, that's way to vague. What I'm interested in is the text's
                  history. In the Robinson Nag Hammadi the introductory notes say that
                  the greek fragments of the Gospel likely predate the coptic copies
                  found at Nag Hammadi. Moreover, the notes seem to indicate that
                  Thomas had been "valentinized" or at least more
                  generally "gnosticized" (sorry for the invented verbs) at some point
                  in the second and early third century.

                  Here's what I'm interested in - Thomas and John share a stunning
                  number of passages, particularly sayings of Jesus. Many orthodox
                  scholars hold that John was composed as an answer to the nacsent
                  Christian gnostic movement. I suspect that's an over-simplification
                  that simply can't account for the extent of their shared textual
                  ground.

                  Personally, I like to think of the Gospels less as the (near)
                  finished product that circulated after 110-120 AD, and more as the
                  works in progress of teaching traditions that had roots in the time
                  of Christ and continued to evolve as they produced Gospels in the
                  late first century. With that perspective, the Orthodox view of John
                  and Thomas as competing gospels (which may have been true of the
                  texts post-120) seems less certain.

                  To my knowledge, relatively little work has been done to show which
                  parts of the Gospel of John could PRE-DATE 90 AD. However, if the
                  passages Thomas shares with John were found to date to the lowest
                  strata of the Thomas text, you can see how that might be read: a
                  shared tradition in the mid-first century that developed a schism
                  towards the century's close, yielding on the one hand, a precurser of
                  Valentinian Chrisitan gnosticism, and on the other, the schools of
                  Christological and Cosmological mysticism that would ultimately
                  triumph over Jewish-Christian Christology/Cosmology and be integrated
                  by (among others) Iraneaus into orthodox doctrine.

                  What I'm looking for is a robust analysis of the Gospel of Thomas'
                  evolution, which places a heavy emphasis on explaining the passages
                  it shares with John. I'm less interested in hearing about the
                  passages from "Q" it shares with the Synoptics - Q's old news as far
                  as I'm concerned. I guess I'm more interested in whether Thomas is
                  evidence of a "J"!

                  Thanks,
                  Josh


                  >
                  > Thanks, David.
                  >
                  > Your lengthy warning is much appreciated. I wasn't sure if this
                  > might be the situation or not, but the message was certainly not
                  like
                  > Josh's usual, thoughtful, self-explanatory posts. Given that it
                  > contained both his address and ours, it seemed like his address
                  book
                  > was the most likely source, but as you point out, everyone would do
                  > well to check their systems.
                  >
                  > Gerry
                • Rodney Cecil
                  On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:55:25 -0000 ... Hello Josh, Sorry for not addressing the primary concern of your post, but if your interested in a scholarly work that
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:55:25 -0000
                    "apx0n" <apx0n@...> wrote:

                    > To my knowledge, relatively little work has been done to
                    > show which
                    > parts of the Gospel of John could PRE-DATE 90 AD. 

                    Hello Josh,

                    Sorry for not addressing the primary concern of your post,
                    but if your interested in a scholarly work that argues for
                    a pre-90 A.D. (pre-70, for many parts of the gospel) dating
                    for John's gospel you might want to take a look at the
                    following book by Bishop Robinson (of 'Honest to God'
                    fame):

                    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0940989018/qid=1081385166/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/002-7937053-7355216?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

                    The title of the book is, "The Priority of John".

                    Peace,

                    Rodney
                  • lady_caritas
                    ... that ... point ... simplification ... Hi, Josh. LOL. I find it interesting then that in spite of this claim that John was composed as the orthodox answer
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 8, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "apx0n" <apx0n@y...> wrote:
                      > Hi Group,
                      >
                      > While I'm here, I'm looking for materials on the Gospel of Thomas -
                      > ok, that's way to vague. What I'm interested in is the text's
                      > history. In the Robinson Nag Hammadi the introductory notes say
                      that
                      > the greek fragments of the Gospel likely predate the coptic copies
                      > found at Nag Hammadi. Moreover, the notes seem to indicate that
                      > Thomas had been "valentinized" or at least more
                      > generally "gnosticized" (sorry for the invented verbs) at some
                      point
                      > in the second and early third century.
                      >
                      > Here's what I'm interested in - Thomas and John share a stunning
                      > number of passages, particularly sayings of Jesus. Many orthodox
                      > scholars hold that John was composed as an answer to the nacsent
                      > Christian gnostic movement. I suspect that's an over-
                      simplification
                      > that simply can't account for the extent of their shared textual
                      > ground.


                      Hi, Josh. LOL. I find it interesting then that in spite of this
                      claim that John was composed as the orthodox answer to the "nascent
                      Christian Gnostic movement," there is still evidence that some
                      version of John was used by the Valentinians (using different
                      interpretation, of course). The burgeoning proto-orthodoxy, of
                      course, wanted to lay claim to the work, dispelling any Gnostic
                      interpretation, and it eventually showed up in the Bible canon with
                      all kinds of support against "antichrists" and false teachers, etc.
                      in "letters" of John.

                      We had discussion during the last few months about John and also
                      Elaine Pagels' scholarly book, _The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic
                      Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John_. If you're interested, you
                      might want to use our "search archives" function to root out past
                      messages.




                      > Personally, I like to think of the Gospels less as the (near)
                      > finished product that circulated after 110-120 AD, and more as the
                      > works in progress of teaching traditions that had roots in the time
                      > of Christ and continued to evolve as they produced Gospels in the
                      > late first century. With that perspective, the Orthodox view of
                      John
                      > and Thomas as competing gospels (which may have been true of the
                      > texts post-120) seems less certain.


                      Well, yes, they would be competing gospels per an orthodox view, as
                      discussed in Pagels' recent book, _Beyond Belief_, but then she also
                      talks briefly about varying Valentinian exegesis and Heracleon's
                      Commentary on John (and, of course, she went into more depth in her
                      earlier book mentioned above).




                      > To my knowledge, relatively little work has been done to show which
                      > parts of the Gospel of John could PRE-DATE 90 AD. However, if the
                      > passages Thomas shares with John were found to date to the lowest
                      > strata of the Thomas text, you can see how that might be read: a
                      > shared tradition in the mid-first century that developed a schism
                      > towards the century's close, yielding on the one hand, a precurser
                      of
                      > Valentinian Chrisitan gnosticism, and on the other, the schools of
                      > Christological and Cosmological mysticism that would ultimately
                      > triumph over Jewish-Christian Christology/Cosmology and be
                      integrated
                      > by (among others) Iraneaus into orthodox doctrine.
                      >
                      > What I'm looking for is a robust analysis of the Gospel of Thomas'
                      > evolution, which places a heavy emphasis on explaining the passages
                      > it shares with John. I'm less interested in hearing about the
                      > passages from "Q" it shares with the Synoptics - Q's old news as
                      far
                      > as I'm concerned. I guess I'm more interested in whether Thomas is
                      > evidence of a "J"!
                      >
                      > Thanks,
                      > Josh
                      >


                      Okay, let's skip "Q." Maybe someone else is familiar with a
                      scholarly, "robust analysis of the Gospel of Thomas' evolution, which
                      places a heavy emphasis on explaining the passages it shares with
                      John."

                      In the meantime, there is no reason why we can't discuss your
                      interest right here in the group. In view of limited source material
                      for the Gospel of Thomas, our group dialogue might at most offer
                      possibilities and conjecture, but it could prove to be engaging.
                      Josh, would you be interested in providing some passages you refer to
                      for comparison and group member comment? :-)


                      Cari
                    • apx0n
                      Hi Cari, The burgeoning proto-orthodoxy, of ... Hmmm. Let s take a deeper dive on your comment about the letters of John. I agree with you to the extent
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 8, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Cari,

                        "The burgeoning proto-orthodoxy, of
                        > course, wanted to lay claim to the work, dispelling any Gnostic
                        > interpretation, and it eventually showed up in the Bible canon with
                        > all kinds of support against "antichrists" and false teachers, etc.
                        > in "letters" of John."
                        >

                        Hmmm. Let's take a deeper dive on your comment about the letters of
                        John. I agree with you to the extent that somebody very loyal to the
                        Gospel of John saw value in writing those letters to distinguish John
                        from the gnostic movements of his day. But I've not seen those
                        letters dated any later than 130-150 AD - and that's the VERY high
                        end of the dating spectrum. So if we run with the points Pagels
                        makes about the hostility John continued to encounter from many in
                        the orthodox communities of the early and mid-Second century, those
                        dates are rather interesting, no? I think you make the orthodox a
                        bit too monolithic...

                        Why not think of it this way: in the early second century the Gospel
                        of John had its devoted followers, folks more or less on the fringe
                        of what you term "burgeoning proto-orthodoxy". Some of them (those
                        closest to that "orthodoxy") felt compelled to lobby for the Gospel's
                        acceptance by those hostile to gnosticism. Yet for all their
                        lobbying, it took decades for the Gospel to be embraced by orthodoxy
                        with anything resembling unanimity. So instead of the big bad
                        orthodox snatching up John and integrating it, a small minority had
                        to win it tolerance (and ultimatley honor) over time.

                        How to explain the vitriol that the letters express towards
                        gnosticism? Welkl, have not heated words often followed the falling
                        out of close intellectual (or spiritual) kin? My money says the guy
                        who wrote the letters, maybe even the guy who completed the gospel as
                        it has come down to us today, was only a generation or two removed
                        from intellectual forebarers who would have been on common ground
                        with the authors of Thomas. If nothing else, it would explain why a)
                        the orthodox mainstream held them in suspicion, and b) they felt
                        compelled to distinguish themselves from the gnostics with such
                        aggression.

                        > In the meantime, there is no reason why we can't discuss your
                        > interest right here in the group. In view of limited source
                        material
                        > for the Gospel of Thomas, our group dialogue might at most offer
                        > possibilities and conjecture, but it could prove to be engaging.
                        > Josh, would you be interested in providing some passages you refer
                        to
                        > for comparison and group member comment? :-)


                        Well, I'll give it a try...though I sorely wish I could propose such
                        comparisons in the context of sound dating. Give me a few days, and
                        I promise I'll cobble together a post on the matter.

                        Much Easter grace (or gnosis) to all who are observing it :)

                        Josh
                      • Mike Leavitt
                        Hello apx0n ... Good point, look at Origin and Clement, for instance. Clement apparently also used the Secret Gospel of Mark, yet virulently opposed the
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 9, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello apx0n

                          On 04/08/04, you wrote:

                          > How to explain the vitriol that the letters express towards
                          > gnosticism? Well, have not heated words often followed the falling
                          > out of close intellectual (or spiritual) kin? My money says the guy
                          > who wrote the letters, maybe even the guy who completed the gospel
                          > as it has come down to us today, was only a generation or two
                          > removed from intellectual forebarers who would have been on common
                          > ground with the authors of Thomas. If nothing else, it would explain
                          > why a) the orthodox mainstream held them in suspicion, and b) they
                          > felt compelled to distinguish themselves from the gnostics with such
                          > aggression.

                          Good point, look at Origin and Clement, for instance. Clement
                          apparently also used the Secret Gospel of Mark, yet virulently
                          opposed the Carpocratians. Those two were virtually gnostics within
                          the orthodox fold, and both were fairly late, though I don't remember
                          the dates.

                          Regards
                          --
                          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                        • lady_caritas
                          ... with ... etc. ... of ... the ... John ... Gospel ... Gospel s ... orthodoxy ... falling ... guy ... as ... a) ... Sorry if I was unclear, Josh. I don t
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 10, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "apx0n" <apx0n@y...> wrote:
                            > Hi Cari,
                            >
                            > "The burgeoning proto-orthodoxy, of
                            > > course, wanted to lay claim to the work, dispelling any Gnostic
                            > > interpretation, and it eventually showed up in the Bible canon
                            with
                            > > all kinds of support against "antichrists" and false teachers,
                            etc.
                            > > in "letters" of John."
                            > >
                            >
                            > Hmmm. Let's take a deeper dive on your comment about the letters
                            of
                            > John. I agree with you to the extent that somebody very loyal to
                            the
                            > Gospel of John saw value in writing those letters to distinguish
                            John
                            > from the gnostic movements of his day. But I've not seen those
                            > letters dated any later than 130-150 AD - and that's the VERY high
                            > end of the dating spectrum. So if we run with the points Pagels
                            > makes about the hostility John continued to encounter from many in
                            > the orthodox communities of the early and mid-Second century, those
                            > dates are rather interesting, no? I think you make the orthodox a
                            > bit too monolithic...
                            >
                            > Why not think of it this way: in the early second century the
                            Gospel
                            > of John had its devoted followers, folks more or less on the fringe
                            > of what you term "burgeoning proto-orthodoxy". Some of them (those
                            > closest to that "orthodoxy") felt compelled to lobby for the
                            Gospel's
                            > acceptance by those hostile to gnosticism. Yet for all their
                            > lobbying, it took decades for the Gospel to be embraced by
                            orthodoxy
                            > with anything resembling unanimity. So instead of the big bad
                            > orthodox snatching up John and integrating it, a small minority had
                            > to win it tolerance (and ultimatley honor) over time.
                            >
                            > How to explain the vitriol that the letters express towards
                            > gnosticism? Welkl, have not heated words often followed the
                            falling
                            > out of close intellectual (or spiritual) kin? My money says the
                            guy
                            > who wrote the letters, maybe even the guy who completed the gospel
                            as
                            > it has come down to us today, was only a generation or two removed
                            > from intellectual forebarers who would have been on common ground
                            > with the authors of Thomas. If nothing else, it would explain why
                            a)
                            > the orthodox mainstream held them in suspicion, and b) they felt
                            > compelled to distinguish themselves from the gnostics with such
                            > aggression.


                            Sorry if I was unclear, Josh. I don't use only the term "orthodoxy"
                            in reference to the first and second century C.E., especially in
                            a "big, bad" or monolithic sense. I used the term "proto-
                            orthodoxy." The early Christian milieu was quite diverse. But we do
                            see elements emerging within this early Christian fluid environment
                            that were indeed, as you say, incorporated into a later orthodoxy.
                            Irenaeus, for instance, considered the man, Jesus to be God manifest
                            in human form, fully human and fully divine, through his
                            interpretation (different from the Valentinians) of the book of John,
                            which supplied him with a way to support his claim that the other
                            gospels used by ordinary Christians didn't. Jesus in the other
                            gospels was a "son" of God, a messiah; he bore a human role, a man
                            with the power of the holy spirit to rule in God's kingdom. Later we
                            see acceptance of this gospel into the canon coloring a divine
                            interpretation of Jesus into the other gospels that most likely was
                            not there originally. Hence we see the earlier disagreement of other
                            Christians you mention who were not originally accepting of this
                            gospel with this interpretation, in addition, as you said, to
                            hostility toward heterodox sects who also used John. Irenaeus
                            therefore also viewed other portrayals of Jesus as heresy, deviating
                            from what he considered correct doctrine. 1 John emphasizes the man,
                            Jesus, as God, possibly countering docetic portrayals, which could be
                            useful in supporting later doctrine by including it as authoritative
                            scripture in the Bible.

                            This concept of correct doctrine was much easier to incorporate into
                            a political structure than an interpretation valuing instead a path
                            of self-knowledge (such as espoused by Thomas), which would be much
                            harder to control and might even be considered dangerous without need
                            for specific go-betweens to stipulate what would be considered
                            a "correct" route. Another possibility I would imagine regarding the
                            vitriol you mention might very well be due to control issues and
                            emphasis for some on theological differences.

                            The "falling out" of close intellectual or spiritual kinship is an
                            interesting theory. I would suggest that intellectual kinship can be
                            something quite different from a spiritual one. Also, shared
                            scriptures and/or motifs don't always necessarily indicate a
                            pneumatic connection. In the case of a possible spiritual kinship
                            (even as Mike proposed regarding Clement or Origen), when
                            specifically considering Gnostics, who emphasized Gnosis as salvific,
                            why would there be a falling out? My feeling is that shared
                            realization of and emphasis on Gnosis as salvific would surpass
                            weight placed on theological differences, in spite of different
                            expressions. Yet...




                            > > In the meantime, there is no reason why we can't discuss your
                            > > interest right here in the group. In view of limited source
                            > material
                            > > for the Gospel of Thomas, our group dialogue might at most offer
                            > > possibilities and conjecture, but it could prove to be engaging.
                            > > Josh, would you be interested in providing some passages you
                            refer
                            > to
                            > > for comparison and group member comment? :-)
                            >
                            >
                            > Well, I'll give it a try...though I sorely wish I could propose
                            such
                            > comparisons in the context of sound dating. Give me a few days,
                            and
                            > I promise I'll cobble together a post on the matter.
                            >
                            > Much Easter grace (or gnosis) to all who are observing it :)
                            >
                            > Josh



                            Thanks, Josh. Take your time. Look forward to hearing from you.


                            Cari
                          • apx0n
                            ... term orthodoxy ... do ... environment ... orthodoxy. ... manifest ... John, ... we ... was ... other ... deviating ... man, ... be ... authoritative ...
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 12, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Sorry if I was unclear, Josh. I don't use only the
                              term "orthodoxy"
                              > in reference to the first and second century C.E., especially in
                              > a "big, bad" or monolithic sense. I used the term "proto-
                              > orthodoxy." The early Christian milieu was quite diverse. But we
                              do
                              > see elements emerging within this early Christian fluid
                              environment
                              > that were indeed, as you say, incorporated into a later
                              orthodoxy.
                              > Irenaeus, for instance, considered the man, Jesus to be God
                              manifest
                              > in human form, fully human and fully divine, through his
                              > interpretation (different from the Valentinians) of the book of
                              John,
                              > which supplied him with a way to support his claim that the other
                              > gospels used by ordinary Christians didn't. Jesus in the other
                              > gospels was a "son" of God, a messiah; he bore a human role, a man
                              > with the power of the holy spirit to rule in God's kingdom. Later
                              we
                              > see acceptance of this gospel into the canon coloring a divine
                              > interpretation of Jesus into the other gospels that most likely
                              was
                              > not there originally. Hence we see the earlier disagreement of
                              other
                              > Christians you mention who were not originally accepting of this
                              > gospel with this interpretation, in addition, as you said, to
                              > hostility toward heterodox sects who also used John. Irenaeus
                              > therefore also viewed other portrayals of Jesus as heresy,
                              deviating
                              > from what he considered correct doctrine. 1 John emphasizes the
                              man,
                              > Jesus, as God, possibly countering docetic portrayals, which could
                              be
                              > useful in supporting later doctrine by including it as
                              authoritative
                              > scripture in the Bible.
                              ...
                              ...
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Cari

                              Hi Cari,

                              First let me respond to what you say above - I'll try to keep my
                              response focussed on a point raised by Pagels in Beyond Belief in
                              pages 60-62. Therein, she is discussing the Gospel of
                              John's "grudging acceptance" of Peter's primacy. She first
                              states: "Matthew's gospel, like Mark's and Luke's, apparently
                              reflects the view of the so-called Peter Christians - a group based
                              in Rome." She then points to a number of differences in the Gospel
                              of John that, she concludes, "suggest rivalry - but not necessarily
                              opposition - between the Peter Christians and those whom John
                              assumes to be his audience, the so-called Johannine Christians, who
                              regard 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' as their spiritual mentor."

                              This is the idea that I was trying (poorly) to convey in my last
                              post: that a group of Christians, distinct from the Petran group,
                              though not necessarily in conflict with it, already espoused c. 100-
                              150 AD the primacy of the Johannine view of Christ's divinity.
                              Pagels goes even further than this - she says on p. 44 that "The
                              author whom we call John probably knew that he was not the first -
                              and certainly not the only - Christian to believe that Jesus was
                              somehow divine." She goes on to site the hymn from Phillipians 2 as
                              evidence of Pauline (and general early Church) interest in Christ's
                              divinity.

                              Whether or not you extend such views to Paul, the other apostles, or
                              their followers, its hard not to accept that Irenaeus was merely
                              advocating (and perhaps a product of) an antique school of thought
                              with deep roots in the Christian movement: a school that held Christ
                              to be divine. That leaves plenty of room to speculate - as Pagels
                              does - that until Irenaeus, such views of Christ were at best
                              controversial, and quite possibly a minority teaching.


                              Now, as promised, let me try to address what I've been told is the
                              common ground between John and Thomas. In a way, our present
                              discussion about Irenaeus is a good first step towards assessing the
                              common ground of Thomas and John. Pagels is inclined to see John
                              and Thomas a gospels in conflict - that's even the name of one of
                              her chapters in Beyond Belief. Therein, she says "I have now come
                              to see that John's gospel was written in the heat of controversy, to
                              defend certain views of Jesus and to oppose others." (p. 34). Such
                              a view fits seemlessly with her understanding of Irenaeus and his
                              struggle to deliniate orthodox doctrine, excluding gnostic thought
                              and texts.

                              I just don't think it's that simple. I agree that the soteriologies
                              of John and Thomas are in conflict - John clearly favors a
                              soteriology of faith in Christ, as opposed to the Thomasine notion
                              of self-knoweldge. However, if John was truly written to confront
                              Thomas or a Thomasine school, I find it hard to understand why the
                              two Gospels share so much ground with respect to the consequences of
                              salvation. For does not John 15.15 echo Thomas 13: "I no longer
                              call you servents, because a servent does not know his master's
                              business. Instead, I call you friends, for everything that I have
                              learned from my Father I have made known to you." John very
                              purposefully introduces Jesus as the only one who has seen the
                              Father. However, as Jesus concludes his ministry and speaks
                              privately to the disciples, he tells them (14:7): "From now on, you
                              do _know_ [my Father] and have seen him."

                              In John, as in Thomas, the followers of Jesus acheive a profound
                              state of knowledge of God, and come to share in God's light in a way
                              that transcends the eschatological promises of the synoptic
                              gospels. Though they differ with respect to means (faith vs.
                              gnosis) Thomas and John appear to me to share an understanding of
                              the Kingdom that is not present in the Synoptics. Koester sites
                              Thomas 13, 19, 24, 38, 49, and 92 as the passages that parrallel
                              John. 13, 19, and 24 are direcly addressing the RESULTS of
                              following Christ's teachings. (see his introduction in Nag Hammadi)

                              Interestingly, Koester suggests that the oldest version of Thomas
                              probably contained primarily eschatological and wisdom sayings of
                              Jesus. He says that "Wheras Q emphasized the eschatological
                              expectation of the future coming of the Kingdom of God, The Gospel
                              of Thomas, in its oldest form, stressed the findings of wisdom, or
                              the Kingdom of the Father, in the knowledge of oneself, guided by
                              the sayings of Jesus." He points out that John, like Thomas,
                              emphasizes the findings of truth and knowledge through the words of
                              Jesus Christ, himself being quite literally the Word.

                              Really, I'm just engaging in a glass half empty vs. half full
                              disagreement with Pagels - for each substantive agreement between
                              Thomas and John there's a substantive disagreement. But I think
                              it's unfair to see their disagreements in light of late second
                              century controversies that were undoubtedly more heated than those
                              at the time the two gospels took form.

                              Please please pretty please...if you know of anything that goes
                              further down the avenues Koester highlights, or if you want to do so
                              yourself, ___post___ :-)

                              Josh
                            • Mike Leavitt
                              Hello apx0n ... I think you have made some good points here on the similarities between John and Thomas, but as even you point out John is based on
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 12, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello apx0n

                                On 04/12/04, you wrote:

                                > First let me respond to what you say above - I'll try to keep my
                                > response focussed on a point raised by Pagels in Beyond Belief in
                                > pages 60-62. Therein, she is discussing the Gospel of
                                > John's "grudging acceptance" of Peter's primacy. She first
                                > states: "Matthew's gospel, like Mark's and Luke's, apparently
                                > reflects the view of the so-called Peter Christians - a group based
                                > in Rome." She then points to a number of differences in the Gospel
                                > of John that, she concludes, "suggest rivalry - but not necessarily
                                > opposition - between the Peter Christians and those whom John
                                > assumes to be his audience, the so-called Johannine Christians, who
                                > regard 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' as their spiritual mentor."
                                >
                                > This is the idea that I was trying (poorly) to convey in my last
                                > post: that a group of Christians, distinct from the Petran group,
                                > though not necessarily in conflict with it, already espoused c. 100-
                                > 150 AD the primacy of the Johannine view of Christ's divinity.
                                > Pagels goes even further than this - she says on p. 44 that "The
                                > author whom we call John probably knew that he was not the first -
                                > and certainly not the only - Christian to believe that Jesus was
                                > somehow divine." She goes on to site the hymn from Phillipians 2 as
                                > evidence of Pauline (and general early Church) interest in Christ's
                                > divinity.
                                >
                                > Whether or not you extend such views to Paul, the other apostles, or
                                > their followers, its hard not to accept that Irenaeus was merely
                                > advocating (and perhaps a product of) an antique school of thought
                                > with deep roots in the Christian movement: a school that held Christ
                                > to be divine. That leaves plenty of room to speculate - as Pagels
                                > does - that until Irenaeus, such views of Christ were at best
                                > controversial, and quite possibly a minority teaching.
                                >
                                >
                                > Now, as promised, let me try to address what I've been told is the
                                > common ground between John and Thomas. In a way, our present
                                > discussion about Irenaeus is a good first step towards assessing the
                                > common ground of Thomas and John. Pagels is inclined to see John and
                                > Thomas a gospels in conflict - that's even the name of one of her
                                > chapters in Beyond Belief. Therein, she says "I have now come to see
                                > that John's gospel was written in the heat of controversy, to defend
                                > certain views of Jesus and to oppose others." (p. 34). Such a view
                                > fits seemlessly with her understanding of Irenaeus and his struggle
                                > to deliniate orthodox doctrine, excluding gnostic thought and texts.
                                >
                                > I just don't think it's that simple. I agree that the soteriologies
                                > of John and Thomas are in conflict - John clearly favors a
                                > soteriology of faith in Christ, as opposed to the Thomasine notion
                                > of self-knoweldge. However, if John was truly written to confront
                                > Thomas or a Thomasine school, I find it hard to understand why the
                                > two Gospels share so much ground with respect to the consequences of
                                > salvation. For does not John 15.15 echo Thomas 13: "I no longer call
                                > you servents, because a servent does not know his master's business.
                                > Instead, I call you friends, for everything that I have learned from
                                > my Father I have made known to you." John very purposefully
                                > introduces Jesus as the only one who has seen the Father. However,
                                > as Jesus concludes his ministry and speaks privately to the
                                > disciples, he tells them (14:7): "From now on, you do _know_ [my
                                > Father] and have seen him."
                                >
                                > In John, as in Thomas, the followers of Jesus acheive a profound
                                > state of knowledge of God, and come to share in God's light in a way
                                > that transcends the eschatological promises of the synoptic gospels.
                                > Though they differ with respect to means (faith vs. gnosis) Thomas
                                > and John appear to me to share an understanding of the Kingdom that
                                > is not present in the Synoptics. Koester sites Thomas 13, 19, 24,
                                > 38, 49, and 92 as the passages that parrallel John. 13, 19, and 24
                                > are direcly addressing the RESULTS of following Christ's teachings.
                                > (see his introduction in Nag Hammadi)
                                >
                                > Interestingly, Koester suggests that the oldest version of Thomas
                                > probably contained primarily eschatological and wisdom sayings of
                                > Jesus. He says that "Wheras Q emphasized the eschatological
                                > expectation of the future coming of the Kingdom of God, The Gospel
                                > of Thomas, in its oldest form, stressed the findings of wisdom, or
                                > the Kingdom of the Father, in the knowledge of oneself, guided by
                                > the sayings of Jesus." He points out that John, like Thomas,
                                > emphasizes the findings of truth and knowledge through the words of
                                > Jesus Christ, himself being quite literally the Word.
                                >
                                > Really, I'm just engaging in a glass half empty vs. half full
                                > disagreement with Pagels - for each substantive agreement between
                                > Thomas and John there's a substantive disagreement. But I think
                                > it's unfair to see their disagreements in light of late second
                                > century controversies that were undoubtedly more heated than those
                                > at the time the two gospels took form.
                                >
                                > Please please pretty please...if you know of anything that goes
                                > further down the avenues Koester highlights, or if you want to do so
                                > yourself, ___post___ :-)

                                I think you have made some good points here on the similarities
                                between John and Thomas, but as even you point out John is based on
                                faith/pistis, while john is based on spiritual knowledge/gnosis, and
                                this is a fundamental dichotomy between the Orthodox and the Gnostic
                                position -- a fundamental difference basic to the Gnostic position.

                                Regards
                                --
                                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                              • pmcvflag
                                Hey Josh, hope you don t mind if I jump in on this conversation. I think you make some excellent observations, ones that I agree with in essence. There ARE,
                                Message 15 of 21 , Apr 12, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hey Josh, hope you don't mind if I jump in on this conversation.

                                  I think you make some excellent observations, ones that I agree with
                                  in essence. There ARE, important parts of John that agree with
                                  Thomas, and there are a number of scholors who have pointed out some
                                  Gnostic tendencies in John as well (outside the previously mentioned
                                  fact that some Valentinians obviously saw Gnostic interperatations of
                                  John as perfectly valid.)

                                  While I think that Dr Pagels does us no favors by failing to deal
                                  with these similarities, I also think that in a way your point
                                  actually makes a good case for her arguement.

                                  Consider this for a moment... what would be the use of a dialogue
                                  attempting to discredit a movement that was too alien to present a
                                  danger? Augustine dedicates time to polemics against the Manichaeans
                                  because he knows there is a value to the movement that attracts a
                                  certain crowd... because he agrees with some of the ideas of the
                                  movement and uses them in his own beliefs.... because he WAS a
                                  Manichaean. John uses Gnostic terms, that has long been understood
                                  even prior to Pagels' recent work, and it is this that has led to the
                                  debate over whether it is a Gnostic work, or one that was
                                  specifically written to fight the Gnostic threat.

                                  I would suggest that the reality of the situation is not so black and
                                  white. The Testemony of Truth also attempts to discredit some Gnostic
                                  ideas and movements, but it is also heavily influenced by those very
                                  same movements, so I don't think it is an all or nothing proposition.
                                  Instead of seeing dispute between a right and left, I think what we
                                  actually see is a rainbow of beliefs disagreeing on specifics, which
                                  makes it easier for us to concentrate on the opposite ends of the
                                  spectrum while ignoring the shades in between. This was not simply
                                  some war of ideas between Gnostics and "Orthodoxy" (which didn't even
                                  exist).

                                  The difference of soteriological emphasis would seem the most prime
                                  amongst people who otherwised agreed with each other, and they would
                                  be right in that disagreement. It would not matter if two people had
                                  the same goal if thier means of attaining that goal was
                                  irreconcilable.

                                  PMCV
                                  ___________________________
                                  >>First let me respond to what you say above - I'll try to keep my
                                  response focussed on a point raised by Pagels in Beyond Belief in
                                  pages 60-62. Therein, she is discussing the Gospel of
                                  John's "grudging acceptance" of Peter's primacy. She first
                                  states: "Matthew's gospel, like Mark's and Luke's, apparently
                                  reflects the view of the so-called Peter Christians - a group based
                                  in Rome." She then points to a number of differences in the Gospel
                                  of John that, she concludes, "suggest rivalry - but not necessarily
                                  opposition - between the Peter Christians and those whom John
                                  assumes to be his audience, the so-called Johannine Christians, who
                                  regard 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' as their spiritual mentor."

                                  This is the idea that I was trying (poorly) to convey in my last
                                  post: that a group of Christians, distinct from the Petran group,
                                  though not necessarily in conflict with it, already espoused c. 100-
                                  150 AD the primacy of the Johannine view of Christ's divinity.
                                  Pagels goes even further than this - she says on p. 44 that "The
                                  author whom we call John probably knew that he was not the first -
                                  and certainly not the only - Christian to believe that Jesus was
                                  somehow divine." She goes on to site the hymn from Phillipians 2 as
                                  evidence of Pauline (and general early Church) interest in Christ's
                                  divinity.

                                  Whether or not you extend such views to Paul, the other apostles, or
                                  their followers, its hard not to accept that Irenaeus was merely
                                  advocating (and perhaps a product of) an antique school of thought
                                  with deep roots in the Christian movement: a school that held Christ
                                  to be divine. That leaves plenty of room to speculate - as Pagels
                                  does - that until Irenaeus, such views of Christ were at best
                                  controversial, and quite possibly a minority teaching.


                                  Now, as promised, let me try to address what I've been told is the
                                  common ground between John and Thomas. In a way, our present
                                  discussion about Irenaeus is a good first step towards assessing the
                                  common ground of Thomas and John. Pagels is inclined to see John
                                  and Thomas a gospels in conflict - that's even the name of one of
                                  her chapters in Beyond Belief. Therein, she says "I have now come
                                  to see that John's gospel was written in the heat of controversy, to
                                  defend certain views of Jesus and to oppose others." (p. 34). Such
                                  a view fits seemlessly with her understanding of Irenaeus and his
                                  struggle to deliniate orthodox doctrine, excluding gnostic thought
                                  and texts.

                                  I just don't think it's that simple. I agree that the soteriologies
                                  of John and Thomas are in conflict - John clearly favors a
                                  soteriology of faith in Christ, as opposed to the Thomasine notion
                                  of self-knoweldge. However, if John was truly written to confront
                                  Thomas or a Thomasine school, I find it hard to understand why the
                                  two Gospels share so much ground with respect to the consequences of
                                  salvation. For does not John 15.15 echo Thomas 13: "I no longer
                                  call you servents, because a servent does not know his master's
                                  business. Instead, I call you friends, for everything that I have
                                  learned from my Father I have made known to you." John very
                                  purposefully introduces Jesus as the only one who has seen the
                                  Father. However, as Jesus concludes his ministry and speaks
                                  privately to the disciples, he tells them (14:7): "From now on, you
                                  do _know_ [my Father] and have seen him."

                                  In John, as in Thomas, the followers of Jesus acheive a profound
                                  state of knowledge of God, and come to share in God's light in a way
                                  that transcends the eschatological promises of the synoptic
                                  gospels. Though they differ with respect to means (faith vs.
                                  gnosis) Thomas and John appear to me to share an understanding of
                                  the Kingdom that is not present in the Synoptics. Koester sites
                                  Thomas 13, 19, 24, 38, 49, and 92 as the passages that parrallel
                                  John. 13, 19, and 24 are direcly addressing the RESULTS of
                                  following Christ's teachings. (see his introduction in Nag Hammadi)

                                  Interestingly, Koester suggests that the oldest version of Thomas
                                  probably contained primarily eschatological and wisdom sayings of
                                  Jesus. He says that "Wheras Q emphasized the eschatological
                                  expectation of the future coming of the Kingdom of God, The Gospel
                                  of Thomas, in its oldest form, stressed the findings of wisdom, or
                                  the Kingdom of the Father, in the knowledge of oneself, guided by
                                  the sayings of Jesus." He points out that John, like Thomas,
                                  emphasizes the findings of truth and knowledge through the words of
                                  Jesus Christ, himself being quite literally the Word.

                                  Really, I'm just engaging in a glass half empty vs. half full
                                  disagreement with Pagels - for each substantive agreement between
                                  Thomas and John there's a substantive disagreement. But I think
                                  it's unfair to see their disagreements in light of late second
                                  century controversies that were undoubtedly more heated than those
                                  at the time the two gospels took form.

                                  Please please pretty please...if you know of anything that goes
                                  further down the avenues Koester highlights, or if you want to do so
                                  yourself, ___post___ :-)<<<

                                  Josh
                                • lady_caritas
                                  ... would ... had ... PMCV, in light of our discussion, as an example, would you say that Irenaeus and Valentinus would have had the same goal? In another
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Apr 13, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > The difference of soteriological emphasis would seem the most prime
                                    > amongst people who otherwised agreed with each other, and they
                                    would
                                    > be right in that disagreement. It would not matter if two people
                                    had
                                    > the same goal if thier means of attaining that goal was
                                    > irreconcilable.
                                    >


                                    PMCV, in light of our discussion, as an example, would you say that
                                    Irenaeus and Valentinus would have had the same goal? In another
                                    example you give, Augustine was once a Manichaean, but he was an
                                    Auditor, not one of the Elect. Would his eventual goal have been the
                                    same as the Manichaean Elect? IOW, would the people in these
                                    examples be envisioning the same goal, with the difference mainly
                                    being soteriological emphasis? (I won't include the Testimony of
                                    Truth illustration because I believe the soteriological emphasis was
                                    probably still Gnosis.) Or could the difference in soteriological
                                    emphasis indicate different goals?

                                    Basically, how would you describe their goal(s)?

                                    Thanks.

                                    Cari
                                  • apx0n
                                    ... Absolutely - the soteriologies of the two texts are at odds...as we have the texts today. But that s what started me down this thread - the possibility
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Apr 13, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                      > Hello apx0n
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > I think you have made some good points here on the similarities
                                      > between John and Thomas, but as even you point out John is based on
                                      > faith/pistis, while john is based on spiritual knowledge/gnosis, and
                                      > this is a fundamental dichotomy between the Orthodox and the Gnostic
                                      > position -- a fundamental difference basic to the Gnostic position.
                                      >
                                      > Regards
                                      > --
                                      > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                                      Absolutely - the soteriologies of the two texts are at odds...as we
                                      have the texts today. But that's what started me down this thread -
                                      the possibility that Thomas, as we have it, is substantively
                                      different from the text (and by extension its tradition) as it would
                                      have been pre-100 AD.

                                      My speculation is that, given the two gospels' striking reliance on a
                                      shared 1st century sayings source other than Q, and given their
                                      similarities in eschatology, the two could stem from a common circle
                                      of first century Christian teachers and disciples. This, of course,
                                      requires that we assign the conflicting soteriologies to a later
                                      period - say, the early second century, the time in which the
                                      Johannine group more or less goes on the anti-gnostic attack via the
                                      Johannine epistles.

                                      Just speculating...I have not a lick of argument beyond what
                                      Koester's introduction to Thomas supplies me. Still - quite a
                                      striking idea if it could be backed up.

                                      Josh
                                    • Mike Leavitt
                                      Hello apx0n ... And then it may well have been the other way round, and that John, not Thomas was modified. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Apr 13, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hello apx0n

                                        On 04/13/04, you wrote:

                                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                        >> Hello apx0n
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >> I think you have made some good points here on the similarities
                                        >> between John and Thomas, but as even you point out John is based on
                                        >> faith/pistis, while john is based on spiritual knowledge/gnosis,
                                        >> and this is a fundamental dichotomy between the Orthodox and the
                                        >> Gnostic position -- a fundamental difference basic to the Gnostic
                                        >> position.
                                        >>
                                        >> Regards
                                        >> --
                                        >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Absolutely - the soteriologies of the two texts are at odds...as we
                                        > have the texts today. But that's what started me down this thread -
                                        > the possibility that Thomas, as we have it, is substantively
                                        > different from the text (and by extension its tradition) as it would
                                        > have been pre-100 AD.
                                        >
                                        > My speculation is that, given the two gospels' striking reliance on
                                        > a shared 1st century sayings source other than Q, and given their
                                        > similarities in eschatology, the two could stem from a common circle
                                        > of first century Christian teachers and disciples. This, of course,
                                        > requires that we assign the conflicting soteriologies to a later
                                        > period - say, the early second century, the time in which the
                                        > Johannine group more or less goes on the anti-gnostic attack via the
                                        > Johannine epistles.
                                        >
                                        > Just speculating...I have not a lick of argument beyond what
                                        > Koester's introduction to Thomas supplies me. Still - quite a
                                        > striking idea if it could be backed up.
                                        >
                                        > Josh

                                        And then it may well have been the other way round, and that John, not
                                        Thomas was modified.

                                        Regards
                                        --
                                        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                      • lady_caritas
                                        ... Well again, that depends on the interpretation. I would imagine that today there are neo-Valentinians who, as their predecessors, would use Gnostic
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Apr 13, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "apx0n" <apx0n@y...> wrote:

                                          > Absolutely - the soteriologies of the two texts are at odds...as we
                                          > have the texts today.


                                          Well again, that depends on the interpretation. I would imagine that
                                          today there are neo-Valentinians who, as their predecessors, would
                                          use Gnostic interpretations of Thomas, John and some of Paul's
                                          letters. As has been mentioned, Pagels' has written books discussing
                                          Valentinian exegesis of Paul and John. And the particular passages
                                          she talks about coincide directly to those found in the modern
                                          versions of these works. These scriptures can be read on various
                                          levels; Pagels provides both psychic and pneumatic exegesis, based on
                                          writings of Valentinian teachers.




                                          > But that's what started me down this thread -
                                          > the possibility that Thomas, as we have it, is substantively
                                          > different from the text (and by extension its tradition) as it
                                          would
                                          > have been pre-100 AD.
                                          >
                                          > My speculation is that, given the two gospels' striking reliance on
                                          a
                                          > shared 1st century sayings source other than Q, and given their
                                          > similarities in eschatology, the two could stem from a common
                                          circle
                                          > of first century Christian teachers and disciples. This, of
                                          course,
                                          > requires that we assign the conflicting soteriologies to a later
                                          > period - say, the early second century, the time in which the
                                          > Johannine group more or less goes on the anti-gnostic attack via
                                          the
                                          > Johannine epistles.
                                          >
                                          > Just speculating...I have not a lick of argument beyond what
                                          > Koester's introduction to Thomas supplies me. Still - quite a
                                          > striking idea if it could be backed up.


                                          I was wondering, Josh, how you might envision this first century
                                          common circle. Would that be "a school that held Christ to be
                                          divine," as you mention in your post #9384? Christ as divine can
                                          take on different meanings. For a Gnostic, a docetic or adoptionist
                                          portrayal of Christ is not at all the same as Jesus Christ being
                                          God. And, how would Thomas be "substantively different" if a pre-100
                                          C.E. version indeed existed? (Bentley Layton's introduction places
                                          the date of composition before A.D. ca. 200. He says that one
                                          qualified expert estimated that GTh was composed in the first century
                                          A.D., but many others assign it to around the middle of the second
                                          century.)

                                          From Helmut Koester's introduction to _The Gospel of Thomas_ in
                                          Robinson's _The Nag Hammadi Library_ (pages 125-6) ~
                                          "Neither the Coptic translation nor the Greek fragments seem to have
                                          preserved this gospel in its oldest form. Even the comparison of the
                                          extant Coptic and Greek texts demonstrates that the text was subject
                                          to change in the process of transmission. The oldest form most
                                          likely contained wisdom sayings and eschatological sayings of Jesus,
                                          including a number of parables. The sayings of this type, even those
                                          which have no parallels in the gospels of the New Testament
                                          (especially the parable 97 and 98), may belong to the oldest strata
                                          of the tradition. Whereas `Q' emphasized the eschatological
                                          expectation of the future coming of the `Kingdom of God,' _The Gospel
                                          of Thomas_ in its oldest form, stressed the finding of wisdom, or of
                                          the `Kingdom of the Father,' in the knowledge (_gnosis_) of oneself
                                          (cf. saying 3), guided by the sayings of Jesus. This understanding
                                          of salvation is similar to that expressed in many passages of the
                                          Gospel of John in which the finding of truth and life is bound to the
                                          words of Jesus (Jn 6:63; 8:51). The first saying of the _The Gospel
                                          of Thomas_ states this programmatically: the interpretation of the
                                          sayings is identical with the finding of eternal life.

                                          "In the further history and growth of the _The Gospel of Thomas_,
                                          this wisdom interpretation of the sayings of Jesus is more clearly
                                          developed under the influence of Gnostic theology, though it is not
                                          possible to ascribe the work to any particular Gnostic school or
                                          sect."

                                          Koester might be inferring at least a proto-Gnostic reading of this
                                          potential older version of Thomas (not really substantively
                                          different), which could easily relate to a Gnostic exegesis of John.


                                          Cari
                                        • pmcvflag
                                          Lady Cari.... ... Irenaeus and Valentinus would have had the same goal? In another example you give, Augustine was once a Manichaean, but he was an Auditor,
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Apr 13, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Lady Cari....

                                            >>>PMCV, in light of our discussion, as an example, would you say that
                                            Irenaeus and Valentinus would have had the same goal? In another
                                            example you give, Augustine was once a Manichaean, but he was an
                                            Auditor, not one of the Elect. Would his eventual goal have been the
                                            same as the Manichaean Elect? IOW, would the people in these
                                            examples be envisioning the same goal, with the difference mainly
                                            being soteriological emphasis? (I won't include the Testimony of
                                            Truth illustration because I believe the soteriological emphasis was
                                            probably still Gnosis.) Or could the difference in soteriological
                                            emphasis indicate different goals?<<<

                                            Good call, I was too vague with the term "goals". The term "goal"
                                            here is contextually variable. For instance, we could compare
                                            Basilides notion of the Source with that of the Manichaeans. If we
                                            assume that Basilides seeks to rejoin that source (something that he
                                            doesn't explicitely state) then we could say that the Manichaeans and
                                            the Basilidians have the same goal, disolution into the source. On
                                            the other hand, for Basilides the beginning is found in an absolute
                                            infinite singualrity, where as in Manicaeism the source is an
                                            absolute duality... so we can say that they don't have the same goal
                                            at all.

                                            Irenaeus and Valentinus obviously have goals that would be difficult
                                            to compare in such a way. In plain language I guess we could say that
                                            they both have the same goal of "salvation", but they are not the
                                            same in either the means NOR the form... at least not so far as I can
                                            see.

                                            I think this difference is more difficult to outline in the John vs
                                            Thomas debate, especially when we are talking about John as it is
                                            most often translated in our English Bibles. I have seen translation
                                            of passages that drop convention to striking effect. To me, the exact
                                            effect of salvation seems less explicit in John, but the hints given
                                            for the cosmology (the existance of the Logos as a being) and some of
                                            the lingo used seems to imply that the effect of salvation could be
                                            reconciled with Gnostic beliefs (or at least interperated that way as
                                            opposed to the more literal heaven with pearly gates
                                            of "orthodoxy")... this is what I mean by the "goal" in this case.
                                            John does not seem to fight the Gnostics on this concept the way he
                                            does on the concept of soteriology. Still, we can't be sure and I am
                                            only giving theorhetic speculations here. In fact, I would also
                                            caution against taking such similarities to mean TOO much (as I would
                                            when examining people like Clement as compared to Gnosticism)

                                            PMCV
                                          • lady_caritas
                                            ... he ... and ... goal ... difficult ... that ... can ... translation ... exact ... given ... of ... as ... am ... would ... Thanks for the clarification,
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Apr 14, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Good call, I was too vague with the term "goals". The term "goal"
                                              > here is contextually variable. For instance, we could compare
                                              > Basilides notion of the Source with that of the Manichaeans. If we
                                              > assume that Basilides seeks to rejoin that source (something that
                                              he
                                              > doesn't explicitely state) then we could say that the Manichaeans
                                              and
                                              > the Basilidians have the same goal, disolution into the source. On
                                              > the other hand, for Basilides the beginning is found in an absolute
                                              > infinite singualrity, where as in Manicaeism the source is an
                                              > absolute duality... so we can say that they don't have the same
                                              goal
                                              > at all.
                                              >
                                              > Irenaeus and Valentinus obviously have goals that would be
                                              difficult
                                              > to compare in such a way. In plain language I guess we could say
                                              that
                                              > they both have the same goal of "salvation", but they are not the
                                              > same in either the means NOR the form... at least not so far as I
                                              can
                                              > see.
                                              >
                                              > I think this difference is more difficult to outline in the John vs
                                              > Thomas debate, especially when we are talking about John as it is
                                              > most often translated in our English Bibles. I have seen
                                              translation
                                              > of passages that drop convention to striking effect. To me, the
                                              exact
                                              > effect of salvation seems less explicit in John, but the hints
                                              given
                                              > for the cosmology (the existance of the Logos as a being) and some
                                              of
                                              > the lingo used seems to imply that the effect of salvation could be
                                              > reconciled with Gnostic beliefs (or at least interperated that way
                                              as
                                              > opposed to the more literal heaven with pearly gates
                                              > of "orthodoxy")... this is what I mean by the "goal" in this case.
                                              > John does not seem to fight the Gnostics on this concept the way he
                                              > does on the concept of soteriology. Still, we can't be sure and I
                                              am
                                              > only giving theorhetic speculations here. In fact, I would also
                                              > caution against taking such similarities to mean TOO much (as I
                                              would
                                              > when examining people like Clement as compared to Gnosticism)
                                              >
                                              > PMCV


                                              Thanks for the clarification, PMCV. You bring up an interesting
                                              point. This discussion seems to be focusing on a possible early
                                              version of Thomas in comparison to John. However, as Mike has
                                              suggested, we also could speculate on possible different ancient
                                              versions of John that didn't survive intact.

                                              In any case, the Valentinians did not see just one possible
                                              interpretation of John. They were aware of hylic, psychic, and
                                              pneumatic readings of the same text. Regarding soteriology you
                                              mention, PMCV, I'll share a section Pagels wrote about "Psychic
                                              salvation and gospel history" in _The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic
                                              Exegesis_, since I'm aware some members have had difficulty finding
                                              copies of this book for purchase. Here we see Pagels describing a
                                              different emphasis from that in her most recent book.
                                              ____________

                                              "The psychics' error, however, is not only that they reify
                                              the 'image' of the creator. In the same way they also reify the
                                              figure of Jesus Christ and the events narrated of him in, for
                                              example, the fourth gospel. The Valentinians see the same error
                                              involved in psychic exegesis. The Valentinians, of course, in common
                                              with all Christians, agree that the gospel cannot be read _as
                                              revelation_ so long as it is read only literally. Literal (or in
                                              their terms, "hylic") exegesis, would read it simply as the
                                              historical account of the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. But,
                                              the Valentinians add, in distinction from `the majority,' neither is
                                              the gospel to be interpreted only `psychically,' that is, as
                                              revelation actually given _in_ and _through_ historical events. Such
                                              a reading, in their view, reifies and absolutizes the _events
                                              themselves_ as being the actual revelation of the demiurge given `in
                                              history.' What the psychics fail to apprehend is that the events of
                                              the oikonomia, such as Jesus' birth and death, are
                                              themselves `images.' Psychic Christians, reifying these, insist that
                                              salvation comes to them only _because_ these events actually
                                              occurred, only because the son of the demiurge actually entered into
                                              human history. They fail to realize that these events can only be
                                              understood `spiritually' as signs and symbols of a spiritual process
                                              that is not bound to specific time and place.

                                              "This does not mean that the Valentinians deny the historical
                                              actuality of the events narrated in John. On the contrary, Heracleon
                                              apparently assumes that the events _did_ happen historically. Yet
                                              their historical actuality remains irrelevant and meaningless apart
                                              from the higher levels of exegesis. Indeed, the `hylic level' of
                                              historical narration can be worse than irrelevant. Improperly
                                              understood, it can serve as an obstacle to understanding, since its
                                              historical form allows the possibility of reading the account on the
                                              historical level alone, and thus reading it in `error and ignorance.'

                                              "The psychics, although they are not literalists, nevertheless
                                              consider the historical actuality of the events to be the criterion
                                              of the validity of their preaching. So Justin, for example, warns
                                              against reading the gospels except as witnesses to the events
                                              themselves. The Valentinians insist, on the contrary, that only when
                                              all the objects, events, and persons described in John are
                                              interpreted as `images of things in the pleroma,' that is, symbols of
                                              a reality that transcends space, time, and nomos, is the gospel
                                              read `in spirit and in truth.' Only by such an exegetical process
                                              does the written _become_ revelation for the reader."
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.