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

RE: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?

Expand Messages
  • William Arnal
    Hey Mike: Just tossing it out there as a possibility that would have an effect who we understand Mary to be. I agree that the speculation is especially thin
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 18, 2010

      Hey Mike:

      Just tossing it out there as a possibility that would have an effect who we understand Mary to be. I agree that the speculation is especially thin re. Salome. In the case of Thomas, I think it's stronger -- all this talk about "Judas the twin" suggests a family relationship to me, and there does seem to be church tradition to this effect (canonical Jude; non-canonical Acts of Thomas). But this is not a position I'd want to go to the wall for, and besides, I'm off to Altanta in a few minutes.

      cheers,
      Bill
      ______________________
      William Arnal
      University of Regina




      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      From: mwgrondin@...
      Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:13:33 -0500
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?

       
      > ... I ... note that the figures in Thomas who are generally presented as
      > positive (Mary, Salome, Judas Thomas, James) all have claims to being
      > members of Jesus' biological family. If this is so, it would militate
      > toward
      > the Mary here [L114] being either Jesus' mother, or one of his sisters.

      Hmm. I have to say that this seems rather flimsy to me. I'm used to Jack
      Kilmon theorizing that all sorts of NT characters had family ties to Jesus,
      but et tu, Bill? (:-) Anyway, in order to buck the consensus for MM in 114,
      I think that the suggested pattern needs to be pretty strong, and I just
      don't
      see that it is. Aside from Mary (who can't be considered because she's the
      one in question), there's only three in the list, and two of them (Salome
      and
      Thomas) are questionable at best, as I think you'll agree.

      Best,
      Mike


    • sarban
      ... From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:25 PM Subject: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114? From what I gather, Burke s
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 18, 2010
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:25 PM
        Subject: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?

         

        From what I gather, Burke's objection to labeling L114 'misogynistic' is
        that the label is overly-simplistic and anachronistic. (My own objection
        would be that it's a misuse of language.) Burke's initial target was conservative
        apologists like Witherington, but Bowman shows that liberal scholars like
        Pagels, Meyer, Patterson, and Marjanen also view L114 as non-egalitarian.
        With respect to the label 'misogynistic', however, only Meyer uses it. Bowman
        seems to be implying a dichotomy between 'egalitarian' and 'misogynistic',
        so that, if a scholar finds L114 to be non-egalitarian, they must be inferring
        that L114 is misogynistic. Such a dichotomy has no basis in linguistic
        usage. 'Misogyny' is defined as a hatred of women - or perhaps dislike, to
        weaken it a bit. To regard women as second-class members of a group,
        as L114 apparently does, is not to hate/dislike them per se. So I would
        fault Bowman for blurring the line between non-egalitarianism and outright
        misogyny. Unfortunately, Meyer (in one of his writings) also uses the term,
        but he seems to have a theory about women being associated with the
        lower realms. Whether or not that excuses his use of the term is open to
        question, but in my view the label 'misogynist' ought not to be thrown
        around so loosely as it apparently has been in some quarters.
         
        I agree that the term misogynist carries problematic modern baggage 
        However I think we need a term for overt hostility towards the femimine
        (a hostility that certainly need not involve any hostility towards individual women)
        and I think misogynist may be the best term available.
        Passages like Zostrianos "Flee the madness and the bondage of feminity and and choose
        for yourselves the salvation of masculinity" seem clearly misogynist in this sense.
        L.114 is not as strong as Zostrianos but probably reflects the same ideas.
         
         
        There is another question about L114 that I found to be of interest, viz.
        which Mary (or better, Mariam) is in view there? Myself, I think that it
        must be the Magdalene, since the question at issue in L114 is whether
        that Mariam should be included in the Boys Club of the disciples. But
        the name 'Mariam' also occurs in L21, asking Jesus who his disciples
        are like. I've always considered the Mariam of L21 to be J's mother, on
        the grounds that her question seems to distance her from J's disciples
        in a way that the Magdalene presumably would not have been presented.
        But others seem to think that the two references to a Mariam must be to
        the same person. Any thoughts on this matter?
         
        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI

      • sarban
        ... From: sarban To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114? There is another question about
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 18, 2010
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: sarban
          Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:54 PM
          Subject: Re: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?

           

           
           
           
          There is another question about L114 that I found to be of interest, viz.
          which Mary (or better, Mariam) is in view there? Myself, I think that it
          must be the Magdalene, since the question at issue in L114 is whether
          that Mariam should be included in the Boys Club of the disciples. But
          the name 'Mariam' also occurs in L21, asking Jesus who his disciples
          are like. I've always considered the Mariam of L21 to be J's mother, on
          the grounds that her question seems to distance her from J's disciples
          in a way that the Magdalene presumably would not have been presented.
          But others seem to think that the two references to a Mariam must be to
          the same person. Any thoughts on this matter?
           
          Mike Grondin
          Mt. Clemens, MI

          (This part of my original reply somehow vanished sorry)
          There has been a lot of relatively recent debate over whether the Mariam
          in various Gnostic texts is the Magdalene or the Mother of Jesus
          "Which Mary ?" edited by Stanley Jones is a good collection of essays with
          an important paper by Shoemaker (who proposes that the Mother of Jesus is
          meant) and various replies. 
           
           
          Andrew Criddle
        • Michael Grondin
          ... One might add Woe to you all who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them! from Thomas the Contender (NHL, p.206). No wonder this
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 18, 2010
            [Andrew Criddle]:
            > I agree that the
            term misogynist carries problematic modern baggage
            > However I think
            we need a term for overt hostility towards the femimine 
            > (a
            hostility that certainly need not involve any hostility towards individual
            > women) and I think misogynist may be the best term available. Passages
            > like Zostrianos "Flee the madness and the bondage of feminity and and choose
            > for yourselves the
            salvation of masculinity" seem clearly misogynist in this sense.
            > L.114 is not as strong as Zostrianos but probably reflects the
            same ideas.

            One might add "Woe to you all who love intimacy with womankind and
            polluted intercourse with them!" from Thomas the Contender (NHL, p.206).
            No wonder this brand of Gnosticism died out, and good riddance to it!
            (This comment from one who welcomes the suffering of such woes!)
            But what I see in GTh is a much more moderate view on this and several
            other matters. The only hostility in L.114 comes from Peter, and his view
            is refuted. Elsewhere, there is hostility expressed towards one's natural
            parents, but that's both genders. There's even a hint of a heavenly mother,
            in addition to a heavenly father. The two women in the text, Salome and
            Mariam, are treated with respect by the Jesus-character, not hostility. Not
            to mention the talk in L22 of making the male and female one and the same.
            All of this seems to me to markedly conflict with the material you and
            I have quoted from external texts. Perhaps those later texts were an out-
            growth of the earlier, more moderate GTh?
             
            Mike Grondin
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.