Gospel of Thomas
Jesus said, I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every women who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven
Book of Thomas the Contender
Woe to you (pl.) who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them!
Zostrianos
Flee from the madness and bondage of femaleness and choose for yourselves the salvation of maleness
Letter of Peter to Philip
First of all concerning [the deficiency] of the aeons, this [is] the deficiency, when the disobedience and the foolishness of the mother appeared without the commandment of the majesty of the Father
Tripartite Tractate
When he who produced himself as perfect actually did bring himself forth, he became weak like a female nature which has abandoned its virile counterpart
And it is these who took form with him, but according to the image of the Pleroma, having their fathers who are the ones who gave them life, each one being a copy of each one of the faces, which are forms of maleness, since they are not from the illness which is femaleness…”
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Every aeon and chaos that the defect of the female might
Dialogue of the Savior
The Lord said, ‘Pray in the place where there is no woman.’ Matthew said, ‘Pray in the place where there is [no woman], he tells us, meaning, Destroy the works of womanhood…”
Paraphrase of Shem
And my garment rubbed Nature in her covering. And her unclean femininity was strong. And the wrathful womb came up and made the mind dry…
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
And do not become female, lest you give birth to evil and (its) brothers: jealousy and division, anger and wrath, fear and a divided hearth, and empty, non-existent desire
For those who were in the world had been prepared by the will of our sister Sophia—she who is a whore—because of the innocence which has not been uttered
Apocalypse of James
The perishable has [gone up] to the imperishable and the female element has attained to this male element
(The quotes above come from The Nag Hammadi Library edited by James Robinson, San Francisco : HarperSanFrancisco, 1988)
Can you imagine the uncontrollable rage and frothing-at-the-mouth wrath that biblical critics would have vented against the church, if these documents had been accepted into the New Testament? Isn’t it ironic that these are the very documents modern critics seem so eager to support? Can anyone seriously doubt that something other than honest scholarship is going on in these bigoted attacks against traditional Christianity—like those seen most recently in the Gospel of Judas documentary?
15 comments:
A scholar of the Bible I am definitely NOT! But I think in some parts Jesus speaks in parables. Is it possible some of the portions exhibited by Dennis in this particular post were not met to be taken literally?
I don't think the vehement supporters of these documents are actually in favor of anything written in them. Their primary motivation is to discredit the Bible and the worldview grounded in what is recorded there. I don't believe anyone is seriously saying "Let's study the Gospel of Judas in our next church service, as much as... the whole Bible is a fraud (their claim), let's just determine what is right and wrong in our own eyes."
The point is, I think, that whether the passages are meant as parables or not, the canonical gospels (condemned as sexist by so many liberal scholars today) contain nothing even close to the misogyny found in the Gnostic "gospels". This is particularly intriguing in light of Dan Brown's assertions that Gnosticism is evidence of an earlier, female-centric, form of Christianity. The exact opposite is clear from the texts.
Kevin is right on . . . the media reports I have found actually have contained nearly nothing of the actual CONTENT of the Gospel of Judas. The only thing quoted or discussed contained within it was the issue of whether Judas was actually obeying Christ by betraying him. The focus of this discussion was that it "shed new light" on the Bible, not as a critical analysis of the Gospel of Judas. The attempt is to discredit, invalidate, or at least water down biblical authority. Any stick will do to beat the Bible with and the Gospel of Judas is just the most available stick at this time.
In many of these documents, the ideal is androgyny. Some of these groups thought that when Eve was created from Adam’s side—dividing the original unity—that was a bad thing. The idea was to get back to an original, androgynous unity, but in the mean time, women were sometimes characterized as weakness, illness, madness, etc.
Regardless of whether these passages were intended literally or not, my point was that it seems hypocritical for critics to condemn early churches—or as they say, “powerful Christian bishops” for rejecting these documents from the New Testament, when it is beyond doubt that the same critics would have vented their wrath on Christianity if the early churches had included these books in their New Testament.
I have to say Dennis your reaction to this whole thing puzzles me. What is it about this story that makes you so defensive?
I have noticed in many of your posts over the last few months, and in such news stories as the accounts of the conference on the so-called "War on Christians," an increasing paranoia and sense of victimhood that I, and many other non-Fundamentalist Christians, find quite disturbing. This sense of being besieged comes ironically at a time when Fundamentalist Christians are politically more powerful than they have ever been in our nation's history. Where does this sense of powerlessness come from? Where will it lead?
Your interpretation of Biblical scholarship as "bigotry" confounds me. The goal of a scholar is to find the Truth. If certain evidence worries you or appears to contradict something you believe, then find some counter-evidence or argue that they have misinterpreted the evidence in an equally scholarly way. Accusing scholars of bigotry or having an agenda are ad hominem attacks that just weaken your position. While not all Biblical scholars are Christians (though many are), to claim that they are saying that the Gnostic gospels, for example, are "better" than the canonical books or that they are "condemning" the Church misrepresents the work of most scholars. It appears that you believe all Biblical scholarship is an attack on Christianity, unless of course, it's your own.
I have already written in other posts how misleading it is of you to quote passages out of context for the purpose of ridicule (which led you to accuse me of "hatred"), and then you go right ahead and not only quote passages out of context but your first example is the very passage I used as an example of your distortions. Here is the full passage and what I wrote about it earlier:
Gospel of Thomas 114:
Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
What I wrote earlier:
Your interpretation of Thomas as believing "women must become men to be saved" is debatable. Many scholars say that he is actually saying the opposite. It is Peter who says "females don't deserve life" and Jesus is being metaphorical and ironic and not LITERAL when he says of Mary Magdalene, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." In other words, he is challenging the prevailing view of society at the time that women could not be saved by saying they can if they assume the role that that particular society had reserved for males. It is actually a radical pro-female challenge to the status quo.
Ed is right (I shiver as I write those words). Some of these passages you took out of context were not meant to be taken literally. Sayings of Jesus from the canonical Gospels could also be taken out of context, interpreted literally and made to sound ridiculous.
I can understand your urge to defend your beliefs. I agree that some media depictions of the Gospel of Judas as a "lost" book of the Bible that would have made it in there if it hadn't been misplaced are distortions. What I don't understand is your ad hominem attacks on scholars and on anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. I don't understand how you could call those who don't share your beliefs "bigots" and accuse us of "hatred" and then go right ahead and attack and mock the beliefs of other religions and non-religions in the exactly same way you perceive that you are being attacked. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
Dennis said: In many of these documents, the ideal is androgyny.
The title of my new controversial book...
The Gnostics: The First Metrosexuals?
The Grande Baffoon says I have already written in other posts how misleading it is of you to quote passages out of context for the purpose of ridicule
You might take your own advice to heart next time you quote the Bible.
And yes, I'm not above name calling :)
Comrade, I think it is almost humouous they way--on this post and another--you're trying to defend the Gospel of Thomas's view of women. You know very well that if St. Paul had written this, liberal and feminist scholars would have a field day attacking it. But forget the Gospel of Thomas, please, go on and re-interpret the other quotes I listed as well. I'd love for my readers to hear you defend this anti-women bigotry.
By the way, one thing the National Geographic documentary didn't mention (not once) is that the Gospel of Judas has some statements that could be interpreted as anti-homosexual. If the National Geographic documentary had used the Gospel of Judas as a two-hour, prime-time platform to rail against homosexuality, you can't tell me you wouldn't be defensive. Gay rights people would be pursuing further expansion of hate crimes legislation!
Instead,this well-advertized, well-funded, prime time, National Geographic special carefully mixes facts with partial-trues and blatant anti-Christian propoganda to attack traditional Christianity--and you wonder why I might be defensive?
If this documentary treated Islam the way it treats Christianity, we would still be seeing mass burnings, bombings and riots in the streets all over the world!
I'll just stick to writing, thank you. But if you think I'm defensive now, wait until the DaVinci Code movie comes out. I can hardly wait! :-)
Ed is right (I shiver as I write those words).
Dear Comrade:
I can't believe it! Here in the VERY SUNNY (currently 80 degree) low country of south carolina I think I just saw some snow flakes! :-)
Let me just clear one thing up. I am not defending anything in the Gospel of Thomas or Judas or any other early Christian scripture. I was merely pointing out that your characterization of them was unfair and biased and that there are other less glib interpretations that have been offered by scholars. And as I've said before I think your interpretations of many passages from the Bible are similarly wrongheaded and there are many Christians who agree with me.
What troubles me, however, is how you constantly characterize those who don't subscribe to your narrow interpretation of what Christianity is as spewing "anti-Christian propaganda," "hatred" and bigotry. Isn't it possible that some people simply disagree with you? And why when you attack homosexuals, for example, and spread misinformation about them is it merely a sincere expression of your religious beliefs but when someone attacks your homophobia it's intolerance and bigotry?
By the way, I just read The Da Vinci Code. Almost as badly written as Left Behind, but a lot more fun.
And why when you attack homosexuals, for example, and spread misinformation about them is it merely a sincere expression of your religious beliefs but when someone attacks your homophobia it's intolerance and bigotry?
Why is it that you have trouble understanding simple logical constructs? The homosexual community champions tolerance of viewpoints... it's one of the fundamental premises that they base their arguments on. I have not seen Dennis make that same claim... that we need to be tolerant of everyones ideas. In fact, again and again, he has pointed out that tolereance of ideas is absolutely idiotic and contradictory. We should respect people, but ideas and the actions that stem from them are not all equal. So for him to attack these ideas is inline with his viewpoint, it's logical. For someone to claim tolerance though, as the homosexual community does, and then to attack differing viewpoints is illogical and demonstrative of their real motiviations... it's not logical it's self serving. The "tolerance" rgument is just a smoke screen.
So then what you're saying is that since tolerance is "absolutely idiotic and contradictory," then intolerance of Christianity is OK?
You can't even stay consistant in a single blog thread Comrade.
The Grande Buffoon spoke thusly, "I have already written in other posts how misleading it is of you to quote passages out of context for the purpose of ridicule".
And then I wrote in an unrelated paragraph, "tolereance of ideas is absolutely idiotic and contradictory".
And then his Grandenest eminated, "So then what you're saying is that since tolerance is 'absolutely idiotic and contradictory,' then intolerance of Christianity is OK?". Leaving out the word ideas and avoiding the entire context of my quote.
So quote me accurately next time.
But to your point. For someone to claim that they champion "tolerance", as the homosexual community does, and then to not tolerate views that absolutely and aggressively differ with theirs is illogical, hypocritical, and completely idiotic. Really, what "tolerance" means is "tolerate my ideas even if you don't like them, but if I don't like your ideas well I'm not going to tolerate them". I don't subscribe to this stupid notion. I respect individuals (although I'll berate the beligerant idiots every now and again when they earn that honor).
Comrade wrote: “What troubles me, however, is how you constantly characterize those who don't subscribe to your narrow interpretation of what Christianity is as spewing "anti-Christian propaganda," "hatred" and bigotry. Isn't it possible that some people simply disagree with you?”
Comrade, Comrade, I realize that it may seem that way to you but if you ever sat in my classes you would know that this isn’t so. There are many, many serious, honest scholars with whom I have profound disagreements,--e.g. E.P Sanders, Richard Horsley, Paula Fredrickson, etc. yet I never characterize them as hateful or bigoted.
There are, however, some who seem, in my humble opinion, to have allowed their anti-traditional-Christianity agendas to override their objective scholarship and I’m going to call it as I see it.
Comrade wrote: “And why when you attack homosexuals, for example, and spread misinformation about them is it merely a sincere expression of your religious beliefs but when someone attacks your homophobia it's intolerance and bigotry?”
Where did that come from? I don’t believe I’ve ever attacked homosexuals. I’ve had very good friends who are homosexual and transgendered. I wouldn’t dream of making personal attacks on them. What I have attacked is a gay rights agenda—I know, I have to stop and qualify this remark by saying that not all gay people share this agenda—but a gay rights agenda that would seek to indoctrinate grade school children into viewing homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle, that would seek to force, under penalty of law, religious organizations to hire practicing homosexuals against religious beliefs, that constantly cry, “tolerance,” “tolerance” while at same time viscously condemning people like me as being bigoted, hateful, homophobes just because I disagree with their agenda, or, like the Equality Ride group, would seek to force private Religious colleges to conform to their views.
Comrade wrote: “By the way, I just read The Da Vinci Code. Almost as badly written as Left Behind, but a lot more fun.”
I never bothered with the Left Behind series. The Da Vinci Code was not the most riveting fiction I’ve ever read but I’ll admit it was entertaining.
Finally, I thought Kevin's post was very logical and understandable and, quite frankly, I'm puzzled that you don't seem to understand his point.
Post a Comment