Re: [GTh] Misogyny in L.114?
- [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