The Gospel of Thomas, Feminists, Evolution, and Kevin Barney
Posted by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007Ok, so I am not really going to discuss Evolution, Feminism, or Kevin Barney.* This was exploitation of Bloggernacle Culture to get you to come and read my post, and play a little game with me.
In case you are unaware, the Gospel of Thomas** is the most famous of all the extra-biblical Gospels, in that it is the longest, is a sayings Gospel, and some scholars date it back as early as 50 CE, which would make it an earlier writing than any of the Gospels in the Canon. (Don’t get too excited though, some scholars, such as Ehrman, date it squarely in the second century.) While some argue that the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are quotes directly from Christ, there is a variety of debate on this, which I will allow you to be agnostic on, for this game.
The game is:
If Christ was the origin of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, how do we understand what he was saying?
Â
I’ll give you three quotes, and you tell me what they could possibly mean.
 Saying #11
Jesus said, “This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?”
Saying # 37
His disciples said, “When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?” Jesus said, “When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.”
And Last, and perhaps the most famous Gospel of Thomas Quote of all
 Saying #114
Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “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.”***
So, what do you think?
*-Apologies to Kevin, I just guessed that he may actually know the “scholarly” answers. Â
**- All sayings taken from the Gospel of Thomas translation by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer.
***- I should note, for the sake of completeness, that this saying is apparantly missing from some copies of the Gospel of Thomas, so some scholars feel it was added at a later date. Others argue it was removed at a later date for being embarrassing. Of Course, it’s irrelevent to our game.
I’m working on the others. But saying # 37 seems simple enough to me. I’d say that he is making reference to the concept presented in Genesis. When Adam and Eve transgressed it became necessary for their nakedness to be covered. If we have our sins removed by Christ we need not feel ashamed to be naked (speaking spiritually of course) any more. We become as little children in following our Father. And we become his children. We, then, need not fear.
Comment # 1 left by Doug Towers on February 6th, 2007
Just a clarification, 114 isn’t “missing” from the manuscript. Scholars think it is later mostly because they don’t like it, but also because they argue that 113 is a better ending. They also argue that it represents a “later” theology.
As for the sayings, one of the more persuasive readings of GThom is that it is “protological,” that is, that it idealizes the moment of creation. The idea of the two becoming one is thus a return to the androgynous first person. The idea of being naked without being ashamed is related to the time in the garden. I think that this reading is very interesting, though not always successful.
Comment # 2 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
TT, there is an idea of one becoming two, not an idea of two becoming one…
Comment # 3 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
I haven’t done any homework on this, but I think there is good reason not to consider much of this scriptural.
Comment # 4 left by Eric Nielson on February 6th, 2007
Eric, the best reason to not consider the Gospel of Thomas Scriptural is that it is not in the scriptures :). However, the question is, is there any value in it at all? What does it tell us about the Early Christians who used it? Are any of the sayings in Thomas actually from Christ? (Some are in the Synoptic Gospels.)
If you are interested, a good place to start learning is http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/. They are the best online source I know of for these works that are not in the Scriptures.
Comment # 5 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
Matt W,
Sorry, I was speaking of GThom as a whole and how these passages are treated. In Log 11, become two is decided negative. In other passages, two becoming one is positive.
Consider Log 22:
And Log 106,
Comment # 6 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
It may take me some time to sort out how I feel about these sayings. Who do you think I am? Mogget?
Comment # 7 left by Eric Nielson on February 6th, 2007
Interesting TT, I had not read it that way previously.
the 1 to 2 had been sensible to me as protological, where Eve is from “Adam’s Rib” and children come from the mother, but I’d honestly been led to understand the two were the “inner” and the “outer”. I’ll have to study up on my gnostic texts and see what the implications are.
Comment # 8 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
By that I mean, does it imply a stronger correlation of Thomas to being a gnostic text and thus confirm it’s date as being later rather than sooner?
Comment # 9 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
Doug Towers, I don’t disagree with you.
Eric, no worries, I am pretty sure Temple Recommend Interviews will not be asking for the correct answer on the Gospel of Thomas anytime soon.
Comment # 10 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
Personally, I don’t think it is a “gnostic” text. In any case, there are no useful parallels that I am aware of in other literature to make sense of these sayings. What you see is what you get.
I think that the idea of a protology is that the primal androgyn is the ideal. When Adam and Eve were split and sexual difference was created, that is what caused all of the problems. Thus, the practices that are advocated here are a return to androgyny through celibacy, a personal transformation.
The feminist critique that is often given is that this isn’t really androgyny at all because Adam is still gendered “male”, and modeling oneself after that ideal is to make the female secondary and invisible, while the male still maintains its privileged place.
Comment # 11 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
TT,
I have read some things folks who favor the androgyny concept of God — that is they see exaltation as the fusion of a man and woman. Any thoughts on that?
Comment # 12 left by Geoff J on February 6th, 2007
Geoff J,
You’d have to be more specific about what you are asking. Are you asking as it relates to GTh or just my general theological reflections on such a thing?
What texts are you referring to?
Comment # 13 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
TT, For Fun, I could point out that some have also held the two becoming one not as a call for celibacy, but as a call for marriage. I think it is just as legitimate a reading of the text. (I am guess this is what GeoffJ is also referring to.) Any thoughts on that?
Also, are you using Androgyny here as a synonym to gender equality?
(Wow, this throw away post is shaping up to be something else.)
Comment # 14 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
I don’t really think that the text can be said to support marriage. The two becoming one is spoken of as an absence of gender, not just a merging of the two. I am pretty convinced that the text advocates asceticism.
Besides the texts we have already quoted, consider:
Comment # 15 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
No, I am referring to a literal man-woman. Many ancient texts argued that the first human being had both sexes and that they were later split apart. This was how Genesis was understood by many early Christians and many Rabbis as well (in the Genesis Rabba). Plato also has a similar myth in the Symposium.
Comment # 16 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
Right. This is what I was referring to in the last comment. So the possible corollary could be that exaltation entails the literal fusion of an exalted husband and wife too. Such a radical idea would certainly have interesting implications on Mormon theological musings — like why we never hear separately from MiH…
Comment # 17 left by Geoff J on February 6th, 2007
Geoff,
I agree that this is an interesting idea, but I don’t think it works for GTh. As for Mormonism, I think that the ProcFam has explicitly rejected this idea and that polygamy significantly complicates it as well. I am not sure that this tradition really has much traction for Mormonism.
Comment # 18 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
Interesting take TT.
I also meant to ask what it is about sayings 4, 75, and 42 that provide counter evidence to this notion of two becoming one via marriage. I have trouble seeing the connection…
Comment # 19 left by Geoff J on February 6th, 2007
Geoff,
Quickly, in 4, the emphasis on the “single one”, in 75 the emphasis of being “alone” to enter into the bridal sweet [KoH], and the notion of being a “passerby” in 42 is typically thought to refer to an itinerant lifestyle, which is sort of antithetical to marriage.
Comment # 20 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
Hmmm… seems like quite a stretch to use those sayings as evidence against the necessity of marriage to me. Heck it seems to me that the “becoming a single one” in saying 4 could be interpreted as lining up with “and when you make male and female into a single one” from saying 22. (But perhaps I am missing something.)
Comment # 21 left by Geoff J on February 6th, 2007
Geoff J, While I am surprised that I can not find many texts online dealing with the Gospel of Thomas (And I can’t find any LDS texts which deal with it at length.) one Prominent view is that the Gospel of Thomas’s relation of 2 to 1 is focused on the idea of the leaving of Father and Mother and the two becoming one flesh, as is also quoted in the Markan text. From my limited reading, this is the view Stephen Davies has taken. The only Ehrman text I have is more of an introduction to the NT in general, and does not evaluate the doctrine past a primitive gnostic concept. The Other two books I have with the Gospel of Thomas refrain from theological exegesis.
There is a lot online about the “androgynous” connection, but they seem to lump GThom in with the Gospel of Phillip and the Gospel of the Egyptians, which may, or may not be correct.
Comment # 22 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
Geoff, I think that it is much more of a stretch to read these as promoting marriage. In a text where women become men (114) and people are not supposed to be either male or female (22), where people are supposed to live as wanderers, where people are supposed to reject their family (55), and the constant emphasis on being alone and being singular, I don’t really think that the two becoming one refers to how important it is to have a nice family.
Comment # 23 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
Matt,
Can you give a citation for Davies? In his earlier work on GTh he did not make this claim, but I haven’t read everything he has written.
Comment # 24 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
TT,
I’m certainly not saying the text is pushing for “nice families”. The rather radical notion I suggested deals with post-mortality. (Though if Adam/Eve represent all of us then this has pre-mortality implications as well).
Comment # 25 left by Geoff J on February 6th, 2007
I read it somewhere in here.
Comment # 26 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
Thanks for the reference. As I read Davies here, he is arguing that Mark changed the GTh saying 22 to speak about marriage in the anti-divorce sayings, but that is not its meaning in GTh. The argument here is trying to prove that GTh predates Mark.
Comment # 27 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
TT, point noted. Sloppy reading on my part. I have not ready any other Davies, so was unaware of his meaning behind:
Further, I admitted am somewhat skeptical of the idea that Mark was taken from Thomas, seeing that this would run counter to the reasoning that is given as to why Mark must be the primary source of the three synoptics, and not Matthew or Luke, in that the grammer of Mark contains errors that were corrected in Luke, and that the text could not go from a state of errors to a state of non-error.
Also, the Markan sayings show evidence of having originally been structured in Aramaic(Which supports evidence of having been translated from Aramaic or Hebrew, supposedly). I am not familiar enough with Thomas and the Coptic to know if such was also the case there, or if Coptic and Aramaic are gramatically similar.
Comment # 28 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
Well, I am not a big believer in the notion that Mark is “dependent” on GTh either, but this doesn’t preclude that they are working from a shared set of Jesus’s sayings which precedes both texts. I am convinced that much of GTh represents an “earlier” version of many of Jesus’ sayings. The problem is that the criteria for dating are pretty much arbitrary.
Coptic and Aramaic are not similar at all. That said, GTh was originally written in Greek (though some have argued that it was first written in Syriac before Greek, but this is just because of connections with other Thomasine literature located in Syria). In any case, we only have the sayings of Jesus in Greek, so speculation about the Aramaic is just speculation and can’t really resolve issues of dating.
Comment # 29 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
Geoff,
Basically the issue here is whether the “two becoming one” refers to Gen 1:27 or Gen 2:24. As I looked over these passages again, I noticed that Gen 2:25 about nakedness and not being ashamed are also mentioned as part of the ideal state in GTh, which doesn’t preclude that the sexual union of Adam and Eve is what is referenced in the “two becoming one” passages. As I have said, I think that it is more likely Gen 1:27 and that this implies a solitary, sexless existence, though I think that a more thorough treatment of this subject could convince me. Thanks for raising this issue.
Comment # 30 left by TrailerTrash on February 6th, 2007
the text could not go from a state of errors to a state of non-error.
I said this backwards, oops.
TT, thanks for the motivation to do a bit more digging on the Gospel of Thomas.
Comment # 31 left by Matt W. on February 6th, 2007
Saying #11
I’d propose this interpretation for consideration.
“The dead are not alive, and the living will not die.”
I think this relates to being spiritually alive or dead.
“During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. “
I believe this relates to the Law of Moses living. They made what life they could from obeying the law. And then it follows saying
“When you are in the light, what will you do?”
In other words now you are in the light of the gospel you can’t go any further (you are at the top).
“On the day when you were one, you became two.”
It would then follow that he is saying that under the law you were on your own. But accepting the gospel God comes to you, and you become 2 - he and you.
“But when you become two, what will you do?â€
It would again follow that now you have reached this maximum state you have no further to go.
Comment # 32 left by Doug Towers on February 6th, 2007
Saying #114
I’d propose this interpretation for consideration.
“Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’”
Life refers to Eternal Life. Meaning the type of life God lives - being a God. Females won’t be a God as such. Thus Peter is saying that she won’t become a God so what is the point of her listening in on doctrine.
“Jesus said, ‘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.’â€
Jesus is saying that he can give females life the same as males have life(even though they don’t become Gods), so females will be as males in that sense.
Comment # 33 left by Doug Towers on February 6th, 2007
Hey, Matt, welcome. When’re ya gonna post something that slower people like me are going to understand?
Comment # 34 left by Michelle on February 6th, 2007
Um, that they were misogynist jerks? Geh.
Comment # 35 left by Proud Daughter of Eve on February 7th, 2007
I guess I kinda side with PDOE. I don’t really like what I read there. It doesn’t quite ring true for me. More of a stupor of thought. But I am not really ready to specifically address why.
Comment # 36 left by Eric Nielson on February 7th, 2007
Mysoginist? That’s interesting, as I take the most gender pointed one (114) to be Christ using sarcasm.
Comment # 37 left by Matt W. on February 7th, 2007
Christ using sarcasm? I would rather think that these aren’t Christ’s words at all.
Comment # 38 left by Michelle on February 7th, 2007
Michelle:
As I recall from my college NT class, some claim that Luke 12:14 is an example of Christ using Sarcasm. I am not personally convinced, but thought I would throw it out there.
On the other hand, I remember a talk from a professor at BYU-Idaho who said plainly “Sarcasm is of the Devil.”
So, depending on your point of view, take it for waht it’s worth…
Comment # 39 left by Matt W. on February 10th, 2007