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

Re: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.