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

10608Re: [GTh] Sethian-Valentinian Lexicon

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Carlson
    Jul 30 8:30 AM
      I haven't been paying very close attention, so apologies if I'm asking someone to repeat something, but has this been published somewhere beyond this mailing list?


      On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

      To Dave Hindley -
      I hope you've received Tom R's original note to the list by now. If not,
      please contact me offlist. (Same for anyone else having same problem.)
      To Tom Reynolds -
      Yes, I understand your position. Unfortunately, there's a number of
      ways that Tom S. could get around that objection. He could say, for
      example, that the sayings fall into two broad groups (ala Goodacre and
      others) - one of genuine Jesus stuff, the other something else. You, on
      the other hand, would be forced to assert that it was all genuine.
      Now as to Tom S's summary (which I allowed as part of your note, and
      to inform members, but don't regard as scholarly), I take it that he would
      argue not that the terms in question weren't used in the Sahidic NT, but
      that the Gnostics used them in a special, technical way. I won't get into
      that, because that would lead to a discussion of Tom's interpretations of
      Gnostic writings, which would be both non-ending and out-of-order.
      But the following does deserve comment:
      > Saunders contends that the Coptic "Gospel of Thomas" is Sethian-Valentinian
      > but is redacted to hide the connection of the Sethian philosophy to keep it secret.
      > This is done by using more common synonymous terms replacing the Sethian
      > specific words used in the apparent Sethian and Valentinian works.
      On the face of it, this begs the question. That which is presented as a sign of
      Sethian-Valentinian writing is missing from Thomas. Why? Because it's hidden
      by synonyms, of course. (:-) Now there are in fact some syntactical features
      hidden in the text, as I've demonstrated on occasion. But bringing them to light
      doesn't require questionable assumptions of the type that Tom S would no doubt
      employ to reveal what he takes to be a hidden ideology. We've been down that
      road before, with many another idiosyncratic viewpoint, none of which can be
      demonstrated with any clarity or certainty. I suppose that the nature of Thomas
      invites that, but I really do wonder if that's what the authors intended.
      Mike Grondin

      Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
      Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic