Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:38:24.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Mary Male: the Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Marvin W. Meyer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas is one of the most spectacular of the fifty-two tractates filling the thirteen codices of the Nag Hammadi library. Discovered in December 1945 by several Egyptian fellahin, the Nag Hammadi tractates were subjected to a variety of political and scholarly ploys, and were not made available in their entirety until the very end of 1977, when the last of the volumes of manuscript pages in the Facsimile Edition and the one-volume edition of The Nag Hammadi Library in English finally appeared.1 One of the very first of the documents to be published was the Gospel of Thomas, and its appearance has already stimulated the production of numerous articles and monographs by the scholars who have recognized its significance for our knowledge of Christian origins and early church history. Since the time of its initial publication scholars have suggested a variety of interpretations of the Gospel, and to date no consensus has been reached. Yet, in my estimation, a reasonably strong case can be made that the Gospel of Thomas, in its present form, belongs at least on the periphery of Christian Gnosticism, and to that extent the Coptic text may be termed a gnosticizing gospel.2

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 554 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

[1] Photographic reproductions of the Nag Hammadi texts may be found in The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972–84)Google Scholar, English translations in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden: E. J. Brill; San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977Google Scholar; slightly revised paperback edition, 1981). Most of the translations of Nag Hammadi texts used in this article are based on the latter volume, though at times I have modified the translation in consultation with the Coptic text. The translations of the sayings from the Gospel of Thomas are my own (The Secret Teachings of Jesus [New York: Random House, 1984]).Google Scholar The references to Nag Hammadi texts (except the Gospel of Thomas, where sayings numbers are employed) include codex numerals, and page and line numbers; the abbreviation BG refers to the Berlin Gnostic Codex 8502, which is similar to the Nag Hammadi texts and is published along with them.

[2] On the interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas cp. the entries listed in Scholer, David M., Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948–1969 (Nag Hammadi Studies 1; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971)Google Scholar, updated annually in the autumn issue of Novum Testamentum. For a fine article reviewing the various approaches see Gilles, Quispel, ‘The Gospel of Thomas Revisited’, Colloque Internationale sur les Textes de Nag Hammadi, ed. Bare, B. (Quebec: L'Université Laval, 1981), 218–66.Google Scholar A brief, balanced discussion has also appeared in John, Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis: Winston [Seabury], 1985) 23–37.Google Scholar

[3] Cp. the excellent study by Ernst, Haenchen, ‘Die Anthropologie des Thomas-Evangeliums’, Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift für Herbert Braun, ed. Betz, H. D. and Schottroff, L. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1973), 207–27.Google Scholar

[4] On Jewish Christianity, Gnosticism, and the Gospel of Thomas, cp. Böhlig, Alexander, ‘Der jüdische und judenchristliche Hintergrund in gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi’, Le Origin! dello gnosticismo, ed. Bianchi, U. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 109–40Google Scholar; Henri-Charles, Puech, ‘The Gospel of Thomas’, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), vol. 1, 278–307Google Scholar; Gilles, Quispel, ‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’, Vigiliae Christianae 19 (1965) 65–85Google Scholar; Wilson, R. McL., ‘Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 60 (1972) 261–72.Google Scholar

[5] See Werner, Foerster, Gnosis (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), vol. 1, 27–32.Google Scholar

[6] Discussion and references may be found in Joseph, Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan, 1925) 17–54.Google Scholar

[7] On the restoration see Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7, ed. Layton, B. (Nag Hammadi Studies; Leiden: E. J. Brill, forthcoming)Google Scholar; The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 129Google Scholar; The Secret Teachings of Jesus, 107Google Scholar (‘For my mother [brought me forth]’?).

[8] Further discussion in Pagels, Elaine H., ‘What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity’, Signs 2 (1976) 293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979) 48–69.Google Scholar

[9] Note, for example, Acts of John 93Google Scholar; Second Treatise of the Great Seth VII 55,9–56, 19Google Scholar; Coptic, Apocalypse of Peter VII 81, 3–24Google Scholar; Irenaeus, , Adversus Haereses 1.24.4.Google Scholar

[10] Adversus Haereses 1.7.2; Panarion 31.7.4; see the brief discussion, with additional bibliography, in my monograph The Letter of Peter to Philip (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 154–7, 186–7.Google Scholar

[11] Cp. Grant, Robert M., ‘The Mystery of Marriage in the Gospel of Philip’, Vigiliae Christianae 15 (1961) 129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[12] The question of whether or not a flagrantly libertine Gnosticism existed in the ancient world remains controversial. For two approaches cp. Hans, Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1963) 270–81Google Scholar, and Frederik, Wisse, ‘Die Sextus-Sprüche und das Problem der gnostischen Ethik’, Zum Hellenismus in den Schriften von Nag Hammadi, ed. Böhlig, A. and Wisse, F. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975) 55–86.Google Scholar

[13] On the place of children in the Gospel of Thomas, and antiquity in general, see Smith, Jonathan Z., ‘The Garments of Shame’, History of Religions 5 (1966) 217–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bertil, Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961) 217–29.Google Scholar

[14] A Jewish boy was usually circumcised on the eighth day; cp. Genesis 17.12, Philippians 3. 5.

[15] Note may be taken, however, of several items relevant for logion 22: 2 Clement 12Google Scholar; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3. 13 §92; Marie, Delcourt, Hermaphrodite (London: Studio Books, 1961)Google Scholar; Mircea, Eliade, Mephistopheles and the Androgyne (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965)Google Scholar; Klijn, A. F. J., ‘The “Single one” in the Gospel of Thomas’, Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962) 271–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; especially Meeks, Wayne A., ‘The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity’, History of Religions 13 (1974) 165–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[16] Note that Paul's style involves ‘neither… nor’ constructions except for the description of ‘male and female’, which may hark back to Genesis 1. 27 and the distinguishing of the two sexes. See the discussion in Hans, Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 195–200.Google Scholar

[17] Cp. Klijn, A. F. J., ‘The “Single One” in the Gospel of Thomas’, esp. pp. 276–8.Google Scholar Particularly helpful for the present discussion has been Baer, Richard A., Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).Google Scholar Here the text consulted and translations employed (with occasional modification) for Philo are taken from the Loeb Classical Library edition.

[18] Das Evangelium nach Thomas (Texte und Untersuchungen 101; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967) 77.Google Scholar recently, James LaGrand has echoed these sentiments by charging that logion 114 contains ‘the most outrageous sayings in Thomas … Peter's request… seems cruel and misogynist, and Jesus’ response seems to do nothing more than temper the inhumane spirit of the request with casuistry’ (‘How Was the Virgin Mary “Like a Man”?’ Novum Testamentum 22 [1980] 106–7Google Scholar). Similarly, John, Dominic Crossan finds ‘ineffable chauvinism’ in logion 114Google Scholar (Four Other Gospels, 34).Google Scholar

[19] Cf. Stevan, Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York: Seabury, 1983) 152–3.Google Scholar For a discussion on the possible Pachomian provenance of the Nag Hammadi library, see Robinson, James M., ‘Introduction’, The Nag Hammadi Library in EnglishGoogle Scholar; Wisse, Frederik, ‘Gnosticism and Early Monasticism in Egypt’, Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas, ed. Aland, B. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 431–40.Google Scholar On the Greek fragments cp. Maicovich, M., ‘Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas’, Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1969) 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[20] On Peter in Gnostic literature cp. Pheme, Perkins, ‘Peter in Gnostic Revelation’, Society of Biblical Literature: 1974 Seminar Papers, ed. MacRae, G. W. (Cambridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974), vol. 2, 1–13Google Scholar; idem, The Gnostic Dialogue (New York: Paulist, 1980), 113–56.Google Scholar For a Coptic text and English translation of the Pistis Sophia, see Carl, Schmidt and Violet, MacDermot, Pistis Sophia (Nag Hammadi Studies 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978).Google Scholar

[21] Cp. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), vol. 3, 288–93Google Scholar, for descriptions of the several women named Mary in the early Christian movement.

[22] Cp. Ovid, , Metamorphoses 9. 666 ff.Google Scholar; 12. 171 ff. (see also Plutarch, , Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus 75EFGoogle Scholar; Phlegon of Tralles, Mirabilia 6Google Scholar [a young girl sprouts male genitals, καί ή κόοη άνήρ έγένετο], etc.; Delcourt, M., Hermaphrodite, 33–43)Google Scholar; Plato, , Timaeus 42A–DGoogle Scholar; Hermann, Kees, Aegypten (Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch, ed Bertholet, A.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1928) 18, 30Google Scholar (also Rengstorf, K. H., ‘Urchristliches Kerygma und “gnosti-sche” Interpretation in einigen Sprüchen des Thomasevangeliums’, Le Origin! dello Gnosticismo, 569–72)Google Scholar; Pseudo-Clementine, Homilies 2.15, 3.27, 19.23, 20.2Google Scholar; Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3.8.4; Acts of Paul and Thecla 40Google Scholar; Acts of Philip 44Google Scholar (Delcourt, , 84–102)Google Scholar; Puech, H.-Ch., ‘The Gospel of Thomas’, 303Google Scholar (references to medieval inquisition records; cp. Badham, F. P. and Coneybeare, F. C., ‘Fragments of an Ancient (? Egyptian) Gospel Used by the Cathars of Albi’, Hibbert Journal 11 [1913] 805–18Google Scholar, along with Grant, Robert M. and Freedman, David N., The Secret Sayings of Jesus [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960] 81–2, 197–8)Google Scholar; also Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 6.12 §100;Methodiusof Olympus, Symposium 8.7–8.

[23] Compiled by Meeks, Wayne A., ‘The Image of the Androgyne’ 176Google Scholar, from Baer, Richard A., Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female, 42.Google Scholar

[24] Note may also be taken of the male devotees of the Great Mother Cybele and Attis. In moments of religious frenzy and ecstasy, such worshippers could achieve the ultimate identification with Attis through an act of self-castration. Thereafter such a man can be described by Augustine as effeminatus and semivir; in poem 63 of Catullus such an emasculated person is said to have become a woman! Cp. Vermaseren, Maarten J., Cybele and Attis (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977), esp. 181–2.Google Scholar On the Naassene Gnostics participating in these mysteries, but drawing spiritual or ethical conclusions, see Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium 5.6.3–11.1, esp. 5.7.13–15 and 5.9.10–11.

[25] On this utterance in the Eleusinian mysteries cp. also Proclus, , In Timaeum 293CGoogle Scholar; Kerényi, C., Eleusis (New York: Schocken, 1977) 141–2.Google Scholar In general see Ugo, Bianchi, Le Origini dello Gnosticismo, 9–13, 724–7, 740–4.Google Scholar Here it may be recalled that while numerous religious traditions within the Indo-European sphere posit a Sky Father and an Earth Mother, other Mediterranean traditions can suggest a Sky Mother and an Earth Father; cp. Egypt, with Nut the heavenly Mother, her star-studded body arching over the earth and supported by the four pillars, i.e. her arms and legs, and Geb the earth Father, whose bodily undulations can represent the topographical features on the face of the earth.

[26] This passage in the tract On the Origin of the World has been emended by Hans-Gebhard Bethge; see the resultant translation in The Nag Hammadi Library in English 168.Google Scholar For a parallel to this passage cp. the Authoritative Teaching VI 23, 7–26.Google Scholar

[27] The conclusion to the text Dialogue of the Savior, still fragmentary, has been improved considerably through the identification of a fragment now at Yale University; cp. Stephen, Emmel, ‘A Fragment of Nag Hammadi Codex III in the Beinecke Library: Yale Inv. 1784,’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 (1980) 53–60Google Scholar (see the paperback edition of The Nag Hammadi Library in English 237–8.Google Scholar) On the particular statement in question cp. also Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.9 §63.Google Scholar

[28] The translations of Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus are taken from Werner, Foerster, Gnosis, vol. 1.Google Scholar Additional references to the female becoming male may be found in the Valentinian Gnostic Heracleon's comments (fragment 5) on John 1. 23 (in Foerster, W., vol. 1, 163Google Scholar), and in the Nag Hammadi text Marsanes X 9, 1–3Google Scholar (see Pearson, Birger A., Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X [Nag Hammadi Studies 15; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981 ], 274–5).Google Scholar Here I am concerned only with statements recommending sexual transformation, where the female is specifically said to become male (Coptic hoout). Mary's statement in the Gospel of Mary (BG 9, 18–20) that the saviour has ‘made us into men’ employs the more neutral rōme, and thus is a statement describing humanization (against Pagels, , The Gnostic Gospels, 67Google Scholar; and Perkins, , The Gnostic Dialogue, 134, 140–1)Google Scholar; cp. also the Gospel of Mary 18, 16Google Scholar (rōme) par. P. Ryl. 463 (祀νθρωπον), Ignatius’ Romans 6.2 (祀νθρωπος 祖σομαι), and probably Ephesians 4. 13 (είς 祀νδρα τέλεων). Further, it should be noted that the possibility of the transformation as described in logion 114 may be paralleled by the suggestion of the transformation of the lion in the enigmatic saying 7 (this leonine logion is the subject of the Ph.D. dissertation of Howard M. Jackson, Claremont Graduate School, 1983). As there is hope for the woman, claims the Gospel of Thomas, so also is there hope for the lion!