Re: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?
- ----- Original Message -----From: sarbanSent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:54 PMSubject: 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 itmust be the Magdalene, since the question at issue in L114 is whetherthat Mariam should be included in the Boys Club of the disciples. Butthe name 'Mariam' also occurs in L21, asking Jesus who his disciplesare like. I've always considered the Mariam of L21 to be J's mother, onthe grounds that her question seems to distance her from J's disciplesin 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 tothe same person. Any thoughts on this matter?Mike GrondinMt. Clemens, MI(This part of my original reply somehow vanished sorry)There has been a lot of relatively recent debate over whether the Mariamin various Gnostic texts is the Magdalene or the Mother of Jesus"Which Mary ?" edited by Stanley Jones is a good collection of essays withan important paper by Shoemaker (who proposes that the Mother of Jesus ismeant) and various replies.Andrew Criddle
- [Andrew Criddle]:
> I agree that theterm misogynist carries problematic modern baggage
> However I thinkwe need a term for overt hostility towards the femimine
> (ahostility 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 thesalvation of masculinity" seem clearly misogynist in this sense.
> L.114 is not as strong as Zostrianos but probably reflects thesame ideas.
One might add "Woe to you all who love intimacy with womankind andpolluted 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 severalother matters. The only hostility in L.114 comes from Peter, and his viewis refuted. Elsewhere, there is hostility expressed towards one's naturalparents, 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 andMariam, are treated with respect by the Jesus-character, not hostility. Notto 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 andI have quoted from external texts. Perhaps those later texts were an out-growth of the earlier, more moderate GTh?Mike Grondin