Gender in Gnosticism

[Mr Cheese]

If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber that she united with him.

–Gospel of Philip

God, the one true God, the source of being is seen as a force that transcends gender and ultimately God is beyond categories of gender. But at the same time gender is very formative of our human experience. So just like God in an absolute sense cannot be contained in words but we still have to approach God through language, right? Through myths and stories and theology and…which is all kind of creating analogies about God. Similarly we have to approach God, or approach God through gender. And traditionally of course there’s been this hyper masculinisation of God, in which God has been primarily confined to male attributes, the father, the son or you know, God as the old bearded guy of the Cisteen Chapel ceiling or God as Superman, shooting down fire from the sky and destroying people. What Gnosticism works to change this image, not to destroy the male imagery of the father, the son or the imagery of the brother, but rather to compliment it with female imagery as well. SO that we understand in some sense that our relationship to God is like a father and a mother, like a lover and the beloved, a brother and a sister; so it’s like a complimentary to the relationship.

So what I want to talk about tonight is the metaphysical nature of gender itself. I’m going to leave the question of God alone for this evening and talk about our own experiences of gender and what the spiritual significances of those might be. I think we begin from a Gnostic perspective that gender arises out of the cosmos, out of the material reality or the physical reality and like other dualities, good /evil, light/dark, right/left…these are seen as the constituents parts of material reality, its these dualities and divisions and separations that make the material what it is and create the limitations that we associate with physical reality. And of these limitations it is probably gender that Gnosticism sees as the most traumatic one of all, well except maybe the good/evil dichotomy. But the division of male/female gender, the division is very traumatic in a lot of ways, it’s been a sort of division of the wholeness of the spirit into two separate pieces and as a result can often lead to very self destructive behavior as all too often when we adhere to the gender identity that we are taught to display and see in ourselves and we don’t find a way to pursue the complimentary aspects of the spirit then we quickly descend into patterns of abuse and dependence and domination that are really devoid of the true spiritual connection.


So one of the goals of Gnosis is to transcend and heal these dualities and divisions in human experience. And thus the question of gender and the question of how we heal the brokenness that is sort of implicit in it is stressed in the Gospel of Thomas especially saying 22:

Jesus saw some infants nursing. He said to his disciples, “These nursing infants are like those who enter the (Father’s) kingdom.”
They said to him, “Then shall we enter the (Father’s) kingdom as babies?”
Jesus said to them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, a likeness in place of a likeness, then you will enter [the kingdom].”

Complete text: Gender in Gnosticism « Prayers and Reflections

Audio version: Internet Archive: Free Download: Gender in Gnosticism

[Oberon]

Simon Peter said to them "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 tha tshe too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Gospel of Thomas 114

Hmmm...

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Simon Peter said to them "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 tha tshe too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Gospel of Thomas 114

Hmmm...

Yes, this is often cited as

• sexist
• Not part of the Gospel of Thomas

Of course 114 is arguably about transformation of polarity... yin and yang...
the words in 114 are also practically mentioned word for word in another nag hammadi text (I forget which...anyone remember?)

So on its surface, yes 114 is "sexist" but if we look deeper to theoverall themes explored in Gnostic texts and Thomas as a whole we see that this is innacurate.

Essentially 114 is about transformation and mystical union, which the Gospel of Philip tells us is the path to Gnosis, or to paraphrase
"In order to know something we must become it."

We find this tipified in the Gospel of Eve, which was cited by early church fathers (bizarrely) as an example of Gnostic debauchery:



"It is I who am you, and it is you who are me. And wherever you are, I am there.
And I am sown in all; and you collect me from wherever you wish.

And when you collect me, it is your own self that you collect. "

--Caitlin Matthews Translation

Philip of course explores these themes further with mention of the bridal chamber (a place of transforamtion, akin to the rosicrucian vault and holy grail etc), how one sees things in heaven by becoming them and the ambigous (due to missing words in the original text) idea of Christ Kissing Mary Mag (although kissing may not be the correct words, the text clearly states that Mary mag was Christ's favorite, it WAS her after all that first encounters the risen Lord in the Bible, not Peter).

Of course this is scratching the surface...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

Yes, this is often cited as

• sexist
• Not part of the Gospel of Thomas

There is no legitimate textual reason for leaving it out of Thomas. Also, the gnostic texts display a clear hatred of the body, expecially of sex, and usually of this world as well. Even those who believe that the term "gnostic" is too broad (see, for example, Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category by Michael Allen Williams) are well aware that the tracts usually described as "gnostic" display such attitudes.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[/list]There is no legitimate textual reason for leaving it out of Thomas. Also, the gnostic texts display a clear hatred of the body, expecially of sex, and usually of this world as well. Even those who believe that the term "gnostic" is too broad (see, for example, Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category by Michael Allen Williams) are well aware that the tracts usually described as "gnostic" display such attitudes.

Well some cite 114 as:

• being a later work, as Thomas, some argue is a) not Gnostic at all ( I would disagree) ,
• b)Thomas is a 'patched" together text, starting with a kernel or seed that grew into a compilation of "sayings/logion". I really don't care for or care at all about this argument. To me Thomas is Thomas

As far as hatred of the body goes, well some would argue this, especially the Docetic groups. But if you actually read the Gospel of Philip (and some others) this is actually grossly innacurate. Philip can be seen as docetic, but arguably it is not, being as it argues not to venerate body or "non body"... Again one can see in Thomas 22 the same kind of sentiment. That we need BOTH opposites in order to TRANSCEND and reach Gnosis.

One has to remember the vast majority of Gnostic writings are from those that are casting hatred toward Gnosticism. The classic example of course is Augustine and the Manichaeans. There are scant few actual Manichaean texts left. It is common to think Manichaeanism is for example: a rehashed version of Zoroastrianism and is about hatign the body. Arguably Christianity not Gnosticism took on the mantle of body hatred (see examples such as the imitation of christ, the ladder of divine ascent etc). Gnosticism arguably took everything allegorically... to the point where it is not hatred of the body, but hatred of the illusion of the body; or incorrect perception thereof. There exist Manichean texts that explore and concern these very ideas.

"Then I explain to you, my disciples, that there is yet another Gate (Sect) that derives from Msiha (Messiah). They are called "Zandiqi" ( Saints) and "MardMani"(of Lord Mani). They sow seeds in concealment and entrust their part to the darkness. Men and woman lie together, gather up the seed, they put it into wine and they give it to drink to the souls and say that it is pure. They invoke the wind, fire, and water; they pray to the sun and the moon, when their spirit dies, they are like the flies on the vase. The vapor rises and catches them; they loose their wings, are taken and fall inside. They are called "the Election (Elect) that Mar Mani has elected." Ginza Right 9:1

For example Mani never EVER states clearly the nature of God and creation..to him these are mysteries that are beyond expression. Things were "ambigous." Gnosticism deals with maps that lead to the territory, pretty much everything Gnostic as far as doctrine and cosmology must be taken with a grain of salt as they lead to a deeper understanding.

A supreme example of non-body hatred would be the Mandaeans who consider it sin ful to NOT breed.

"Sex to the pious Mandaean is the holiest mystery of life and it is enjoined upon him to regard it as such and to pronounce the most sacred name, 'the great Life', before performing a sexual act. Continence is praised but celibacy is an unnatural and unholy state, condemned in the GR (Ginza Right), especially in polemical passages referring to monasteries and convents."
- The Secret Adam by Drower, p 10

Within other members of the Persian Gnostic strain sex is also not seen as bad, and body hatred is not a "good thing." Although one can take the imitation of Christ (Thomas A Kempis) and see it through the eyes of one who is renouncing the "vain glories" of the body... essentially to a message where one must become detached from over "favour" towards the phsycial. Christianity of course tends largely to take asceticism at face value and to the extreme. Some Gnostics did too, but not all.

The more conservative Valentinians view on marriage and sexuality, as recorded by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.6,4), was that those "who have experienced that 'mystery of syzygies' are enjoined to enact marital intercourse in ways that express their spiritual, psychic, and bodily integration, celebrating the act as a symbol of the divine pleromic harmony. But those who remain uninitiated are to refrain from sexual intercourse."

In contrast to Augustine's new belief, Manichaean woman continued to hold positions of power and authority within Gnostic Christianity. some of this freedom was created by Mani's encouragement of family planning and contraception among laity and monastics. "Women could, however, be accepted among the perfecti; it is widely speculated that this was the main appeal of Catharism for women. The perfecti were the ministers of the Cathar faith, wandering in pairs through the countryside to be with the credentes. Women and men worked together to gain converts to the faith and maintaining devotion. To be a perfecta gave a woman a higher status than she could ever attain in the Catholic church." - "Searching For A Cathar Feminism, 1100-1300"

Manichaeans did not condone or practice indiscriminate sexuality but they are accused of practicing non conceiving sexual acts in secret in certain tracts of the Mandaean Ginza scroll written before the six century. In the eleventh century they were reported as doing the following: "Manichaeans appeared in Aquitaine, leading the people astray. They denied baptism, the cross, and all sound doctrine. They did not eat meat, as though they were monks, and pretended to be celibate, but among themselves they enjoyed every indulgence. They were messengers of Antichrist, and caused many to wander from the faith."
- Adhémar of Chabannes (c. 1018)

Finally we can look to the beginning of the Gospel of Mary, and how everythign wil return to its roots, arguably echoing the sentiment that it is not the body OR the spirit that is "best"

. . . Will matter then be destroyed or not?
22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.
23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.
24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?
26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.
27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.

Syzygetic: Having to do with the conjunction or opposition of two heavenly bodies, or either of the points which these occur, most often in regard to the sun and moon.
Syzygos: Literally means “consort”. Sometimes used to refer to the twin. Is generally meant to imply the thing to which one is driven to connect with. A person’s syzygos is their spirit. ”Sophia’s mistake was said to be her drive to create without her syzygos.” Syzgy, is considered a blending of spirit and
soul. (See; Theodotus, Criddle Collection.) Syzgy, is considered a blending of spirit and soul. In Gnosticism the male-female pair of Aeons is called a “Syzygy.” http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/archetypal_man.html

[Buttons*]

Mr. Cheese, I must spread more frubals before I can give them back to you

Awesome thread!!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

Well some cite 114 as:

• being a later work, as Thomas, some argue is a) not Gnostic at all ( I would disagree) ,

Could you cite a source which argues that Thomas is a later work? Most scholars who argue it isn't gnostic argue it isn't because it is too early, not too late. The most commonly accepted date is around the beginning of the second century, although some scholars date it earlier.

b)Thomas is a 'patched" together text, starting with a kernel or seed that grew into a compilation of "sayings/logion". I really don't care for or care at all about this argument. To me Thomas is Thomas

All scholars argue that Thomas is a collection of logia. The point is that there is no reason to exclude 114. Those who do simply don't like the fact that it is sexist, but that is hardly a compelling argument.

But if you actually read the Gospel of Philip (and some others) this is actually grossly innacurate.

I have. "There are two trees in paradise. The one engenders a[nimals], the other engenders people. Adam [ate] from the tree which brought forth animals; [he be]came a beast and he begot beasts."

Not exactly a stunning praise of humanity. As for the body,

"No one wil hide a large valuable object in something large, but many a time one has tossed countless thousands into a thing worth a penny. Compare the soul. It is a precious thing (and) it came to be in a contemptible body."

As for gender, in philip was also have:

"Whereas in this world the union is one of husband and wife- a case of strength complemented by weakness..."

The woman is the weak part of the union.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Could you cite a source which argues that Thomas is a later work? Most scholars who argue it isn't gnostic argue it isn't because it is too early, not too late. The most commonly accepted date is around the beginning of the second century, although some scholars date it earlier.



All scholars argue that Thomas is a collection of logia. The point is that there is no reason to exclude 114. Those who do simply don't like the fact that it is sexist, but that is hardly a compelling argument.



I have. "There are two trees in paradise. The one engenders a[nimals], the other engenders people. Adam [ate] from the tree which brought forth animals; [he be]came a beast and he begot beasts."

Not exactly a stunning praise of humanity. As for the body,

"No one wil hide a large valuable object in something large, but many a time one has tossed countless thousands into a thing worth a penny. Compare the soul. It is a precious thing (and) it came to be in a contemptible body."

As for gender, in philip was also have:

"Whereas in this world the union is one of husband and wife- a case of strength complemented by weakness..."

The woman is the weak part of the union.

114 is considered a later addition...to Thomas

"
[Saying probably added to the original collection at a later date:]
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."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
For other arguements on Thomas one needs to examine the works of Deconick, Grondin et al....



Frankly I could care less, scholarly attitudes are like one who looks at an apple but refuses to eat it. But it is still good stuff that must not be dismissed, just taken with a pinch of salt.
...............
One must look at philip overall, overall it is not really against the body, more against the unitititated body, one who values the body over "soul"...

"Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal. "

So you see while you cite that Philip hates the body, Philip states that one must NOT value one over the other.... with this we must read between the lines and ascertain a deeper meaning in

"No one wil hide a large valuable object in something large, but many a time one has tossed countless thousands into a thing worth a penny. Compare the soul. It is a precious thing (and) it came to be in a contemptible body."

Leloup in his series of 3 or 4 books details how Philip is not really a docetic text at all, for ONE example

Thomas also has similar sentiment, one example (there are others in the text)

112. Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

"Whereas in this world the union is one of husband and wife- a case of strength complemented by weakness..."

The woman is the weak part of the union.

Again this is about being unitiated...

the woman is passive, inactive.

The male is active, giving.

But again unless you know about such things...examining philip "literally" will give you a false impression.

...

You have to remeber that creation was by the demi urge also...
One has to move beyond the Demi urge, the archons and their false seven heavens....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

114 is considered a later addition...to Thomas

Again, there is no reason for saying this. We possess only one compete text of thomas. Therefore this isn't a textual variant. The language is not different from the rest of thomas. There is no reason to think of it as a later addition to the text.

"

[Saying probably added to the original collection at a later date:]
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."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Don't cite a website as evidence if you want me to take it seriously. If you want to cite texts in support, please do it either from books published by an academic press, or from peer-reviewed journals.

For other arguements on Thomas one needs to examine the works of Deconick, Grondin et al....

I have read extensively in this area, from the earlier authors like A. Harnack, A. D. Nock, and K. Rudolf, to more modern scholars like K. King, E. Pagels, B. Ehrman, J. D. Crossan, J. P. Meier, M. A. Williams, C. Tuckett, and so on.

Less "schorlarly" people tend to think Thomas is an earlier work.

This is completely false. The most common date accepted by scholars is the beginning of the second century. A very early date (earlier than some or all of the canonical gospels) is proposed by H. Koester. He is followed in this date most notably by J. M. Robinson and J. D. Crossan. Few scholars argue for a date beyond the second century, particularly because we have fragments that are from the gospel of philip contained in the Oxyrhynchus papryi that are dated to the beginning of the third century or end of the second (in other words, the scraps themselves are from this period; they are copies of a much older work, which is evidence that thomas is at least from the second century).

One must look at philip overall

Why? It is universally recognized by scholars that Philip is similiar to Thomas in that it brings together a diverse number of teachings in a haphazard manner.

"Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal. "

So you see while you cite that Philip hates the body, Philip states that one must NOT value one over the other.... with this we must read between the lines and ascertain a deeper meaning in

No i don't see that. Your quote is a typical gnostic expression of "everything in the world is nothing" and "those who are exalted above it are indissoluble, eternal." You seem to have missed the fact that the when Philip states these various dichotomies (good and evil, right and left, etc) are equal, he goes on to say that they will all dissolve, but the exalted (i.e., the gnostics) are indissoluble. He isn't saying that the body and soul are equal.

And he explicitly states the opposite.
"No one wil hide a large valuable object in something large, but many a time one has tossed countless thousands into a thing worth a penny. Compare the soul. It is a precious thing (and) it came to be in a contemptible body."

Leloup in his series of 3 or 4 books details how Philip is not really a docetic text at all, for ONE example

Docetic does not mean hatred of the body. It is from the greek dokein meaning "to appear." It means that Jesus only "appeared" human, but that he wasn't. It has nothing to do with hatred of the body per se.

112. Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."

Yes, because hatred of the body, and thinking of it as a prison was a common expression in gnostic thought.