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

Re: [GTh] GTh 61

Expand Messages
  • James Lambert
    ... Thank you Mike for demanding that I do so. The task of formulating a rational justification was no small challenge. ... One Salome. The other two views
    Message 1 of 35 , Sep 18, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Grondin wrote:
      >
      > James Lambert writes:
      > > Surely, if [Salome] were a midwife, she would have said something to the
      > > effect that though she was a midwife perhaps the fact that she hadn't
      > > directly contributed any children of her own might lessen her guilt. The
      > > response that she does give is in keeping with what one would say if one
      > > had never given birth, and the fact that her response makes no mention
      > > of her ever serving as a midwife, when the nature of the issue in
      > > question centers around the question of childbirth, implicitly negates
      > > such an identification. It is absurd to demand that she explicitly state
      > > that she was not a midwife. Clearly her response indicates that she
      > > considers herself free from any question of guilt in this regard and
      > > such would not be the case if she had ever served as a midwife.
      >
      > Well, I think this is a fine argument. Since I can't find any fault with it,
      > I have to agree with it. Thanks for taking the time to spell out your
      > reasoning in more detail.

      Thank you Mike for demanding that I do so. The task of formulating a
      rational justification was no small challenge.
      >
      > > This section preserved from the Egyptian Gospel effectively denies the
      > > validity of the two traditional attempts to identify Salome the
      > > disciple. No, she is not the mother of the children of Zebedee, and no,
      > > she is not one of the midwives who witnessed the birth of Jesus. I
      > > maintain that this is no accident, that the author was contradicting
      > > these traditions purposely.
      >
      > Because he felt that the other two views were historically incorrect? Or
      > because he didn't want his Salome to be confused with others of the same
      > name? (In other words, do you think there were several Salome's in question,
      > or just the one from Mark differently identified by different writers?)

      One Salome. The other two views were intentionally incorrect.
      Furthermore, the Matthew text identifying Mary, Mary, and the mother of
      the sons of Zebedee was crafted specifically to support the incorrect
      identification of Salome with the mother of the Zebedee boys. On the
      other hand, Luke's version of events was designed so as to provide
      certain clues as to Salome's social station without actually mentioning
      her by name.

      > The major question, I guess, is whether the originator of Th61 identified
      > her as the same person who was to become the childless Salome of what I take
      > to have been later Gnostic writings.

      Later than what? There is no reason to suppose that Thomas is not
      contemporary with the Egyptian Gospel. Later gnostic writings would be
      the Pristis Sophia or the surviving Egyptian gospel, but these are not
      Thomistic works but are rather works of classic gnosticism.

      > (And here I have to enter apologies to
      > John Moon and Frank McCoy for assuming that there was no question but that
      > the two Salome's were the same.) Whoever Salome is in Th61, the "two resting
      > on a bed" in 61A may be her and Jesus, but if she was thought to be the
      > mother of the brothers Zebedee by the originator of 61, it opens up the
      > additional possibility that the "two resting on a bed" might be her two
      > sons, the one of whom that supposedly lived (John) we know to have been a
      > favorite of some Gnostic writers (e.g., Apocryphon of John).

      Clearly the author of the Egyptian Gospel did not believe Salome to have
      had children. It has also been shown that the Egyptian Gospel contains
      terminology straight out of Thomas: 'When you have trampled on the
      garment of shame and when the two become one and the male with the
      female (is) neither male nor female', which gives us reason to suppose
      that the Egyptian Gospel was within the Thomist tradition. Therefore it
      follows that the author of Thomas took Salome's lack of children as a
      given.

      > This John was
      > also thought to have been a childless "virgin" in some circles, so I'm not
      > sure how to rule out that possibility. Even if we assume that Salome is
      > well-to-do in Th61, that doesn't seem to quite do it, unless we also assume
      > that Zebedee could not have been well-to-do.

      I am afraid that I don't see your point. It is enough that the author
      identifies Salome as childless. Once that is acknowledged, it becomes
      clear that at least one tradition, and one closely associated to that
      which created the Gospel of Thomas, denied the identification of Salome
      with the mother of the Zebedee boys.

      That is all that it takes to validate a line of inquiry which takes
      Salome's lack of children as a given.

      Also, there is nothing in #61 which indicates that the two who will lie
      on the couch are the sons of Salome. Notice, if you will, that #61
      speaks of an inheritance. Jesus speaks of receiving the things of his
      father. The one who is destroyed will be filled with light, in other
      words, will inherit the quality of the father, while the one who is
      divided will be filled with darkness, will not inherit the quality of
      the father. The destroyed/divided perceived error works well to
      highlight the fact that Jesus, as his father's heir, is by necessity
      undivided and he is also scheduled to soon be destroyed. His opposite,
      the other who is destined to recline upon the couch, will become
      divided, and therefore will not inherit the father's light.

      > I'm sure these assumptions will
      > strike others as being reasonable, but they strike me as being too weak to
      > clinch the case.

      The case, then, is still open.




      --
      James Lambert
      http://web.telecom.cz/Gnostradamus
    • James Lambert
      ... Thank you Mike for demanding that I do so. The task of formulating a rational justification was no small challenge. ... One Salome. The other two views
      Message 35 of 35 , Sep 18, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Grondin wrote:
        >
        > James Lambert writes:
        > > Surely, if [Salome] were a midwife, she would have said something to the
        > > effect that though she was a midwife perhaps the fact that she hadn't
        > > directly contributed any children of her own might lessen her guilt. The
        > > response that she does give is in keeping with what one would say if one
        > > had never given birth, and the fact that her response makes no mention
        > > of her ever serving as a midwife, when the nature of the issue in
        > > question centers around the question of childbirth, implicitly negates
        > > such an identification. It is absurd to demand that she explicitly state
        > > that she was not a midwife. Clearly her response indicates that she
        > > considers herself free from any question of guilt in this regard and
        > > such would not be the case if she had ever served as a midwife.
        >
        > Well, I think this is a fine argument. Since I can't find any fault with it,
        > I have to agree with it. Thanks for taking the time to spell out your
        > reasoning in more detail.

        Thank you Mike for demanding that I do so. The task of formulating a
        rational justification was no small challenge.
        >
        > > This section preserved from the Egyptian Gospel effectively denies the
        > > validity of the two traditional attempts to identify Salome the
        > > disciple. No, she is not the mother of the children of Zebedee, and no,
        > > she is not one of the midwives who witnessed the birth of Jesus. I
        > > maintain that this is no accident, that the author was contradicting
        > > these traditions purposely.
        >
        > Because he felt that the other two views were historically incorrect? Or
        > because he didn't want his Salome to be confused with others of the same
        > name? (In other words, do you think there were several Salome's in question,
        > or just the one from Mark differently identified by different writers?)

        One Salome. The other two views were intentionally incorrect.
        Furthermore, the Matthew text identifying Mary, Mary, and the mother of
        the sons of Zebedee was crafted specifically to support the incorrect
        identification of Salome with the mother of the Zebedee boys. On the
        other hand, Luke's version of events was designed so as to provide
        certain clues as to Salome's social station without actually mentioning
        her by name.

        > The major question, I guess, is whether the originator of Th61 identified
        > her as the same person who was to become the childless Salome of what I take
        > to have been later Gnostic writings.

        Later than what? There is no reason to suppose that Thomas is not
        contemporary with the Egyptian Gospel. Later gnostic writings would be
        the Pristis Sophia or the surviving Egyptian gospel, but these are not
        Thomistic works but are rather works of classic gnosticism.

        > (And here I have to enter apologies to
        > John Moon and Frank McCoy for assuming that there was no question but that
        > the two Salome's were the same.) Whoever Salome is in Th61, the "two resting
        > on a bed" in 61A may be her and Jesus, but if she was thought to be the
        > mother of the brothers Zebedee by the originator of 61, it opens up the
        > additional possibility that the "two resting on a bed" might be her two
        > sons, the one of whom that supposedly lived (John) we know to have been a
        > favorite of some Gnostic writers (e.g., Apocryphon of John).

        Clearly the author of the Egyptian Gospel did not believe Salome to have
        had children. It has also been shown that the Egyptian Gospel contains
        terminology straight out of Thomas: 'When you have trampled on the
        garment of shame and when the two become one and the male with the
        female (is) neither male nor female', which gives us reason to suppose
        that the Egyptian Gospel was within the Thomist tradition. Therefore it
        follows that the author of Thomas took Salome's lack of children as a
        given.

        > This John was
        > also thought to have been a childless "virgin" in some circles, so I'm not
        > sure how to rule out that possibility. Even if we assume that Salome is
        > well-to-do in Th61, that doesn't seem to quite do it, unless we also assume
        > that Zebedee could not have been well-to-do.

        I am afraid that I don't see your point. It is enough that the author
        identifies Salome as childless. Once that is acknowledged, it becomes
        clear that at least one tradition, and one closely associated to that
        which created the Gospel of Thomas, denied the identification of Salome
        with the mother of the Zebedee boys.

        That is all that it takes to validate a line of inquiry which takes
        Salome's lack of children as a given.

        Also, there is nothing in #61 which indicates that the two who will lie
        on the couch are the sons of Salome. Notice, if you will, that #61
        speaks of an inheritance. Jesus speaks of receiving the things of his
        father. The one who is destroyed will be filled with light, in other
        words, will inherit the quality of the father, while the one who is
        divided will be filled with darkness, will not inherit the quality of
        the father. The destroyed/divided perceived error works well to
        highlight the fact that Jesus, as his father's heir, is by necessity
        undivided and he is also scheduled to soon be destroyed. His opposite,
        the other who is destined to recline upon the couch, will become
        divided, and therefore will not inherit the father's light.

        > I'm sure these assumptions will
        > strike others as being reasonable, but they strike me as being too weak to
        > clinch the case.

        The case, then, is still open.




        --
        James Lambert
        http://web.telecom.cz/Gnostradamus
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.