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

Re: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Nov 18, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- 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 2 of 9 , Nov 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
         
        ----- 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 3 of 9 , Nov 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          [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.