Re: The puzzle of Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
To: ""George Murphy"" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: The puzzle of Adam

> In a message dated 12/3/2004 1:21:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, "George
> Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> writes:
>
> I can't see that Logion 114 says what you think it does. Quoting from the
> translation in Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (which includes
> Thomas as an Appendix): "Jesus said: 'Lo, I shall lead her, so that I
> may make her male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you
> males. For every woman who makes herself a male will enter the kingdom of
> heaven.'"
> Mary - & other women - are to be made male. It does not say that they are
> to be made androgynous, or that they are to be made male in addition to
> being female.
> Mary is to be changed so that she "resembl[es] you males." I.e., Peter &
> the other males are OK already - there is no suggestion that they must be
> completed by their missing female halves. Instead, woman must be changed
> to be like them.
> Logion 22 OTOH does have a reference to some type of eschatological
> androgynity: "When you make the male and the female into a single one, so
> that the male will not be male and the female will <not> be female ..."
>
> Rich responds:
> My translation (The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson, general
> editor) reads:
> They said to him: Shall we then as children enter the kingdom?
> Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the
> inside like the outside, and the outside like the inside, and the above
> like the below and when you make the male and the female one and the same
> so that the male not be male nor the female female."
>
> Now, George, in the expanded context I have now provided for 22 you can
> easily see that each of the metaphorical pairs are reconciled. There is no
> dispossesion or replacement, yet you would prefer to believe that one of
> those pairs of opposites in the text in 22 is unlike the other stringed
> metaphors but instead represents a dispossession or replacement of the
> male with the female attributes, an idea you conclude is then repeated in
> 114, though in both 22 and 114 what is being described is the method for
> entering the kingdom of heaven. For your analysis to be correct we wuld
> have to admit (for the GofT) two contradictory methods of entering "the
> kingdom," one in which there is a displacement of female by male
> attributes(114), and one (22) in which there is a reconciliation of male
> and female attributes. I think your interpetation constitutes a
> theological conundrum.
>
> George:
> Now of course in the Jewish tradition there are ideas about the originally
> androgyous character of Adam but I don't see any indication that such
> ideas are being used in 114 - though perhaps in 22. But when all is said
> and done, I see no reason to accept either those traditions or Thomas as
> authoritative on this point. Genesis 1 & 2 give no reason to think that
> Adam was androgynous. If I recall correctly, one thing that gave rise to
> that idea was trying to read "male and female he created them" of the 1st
> account into the formation of adham in the 2d.
>
> rich:
> Perhaps now with the expanded context I have provided, you can see that
> 114 does not constitute a replacement of female with male but constitutes
> a reconciliation of the male and female principles as already foreshadowed
> in 22. Of course, I can't speak logically to what one feels is
> authoritative. I simply accept that's your position, but for those a bit
> more open to speculation, an accurate overall view of the canonical
> gospels is made more likely when you look at all the available texts from
> that period. But in fact, we find Matthew 19:4: Jesus says, "Have you
> never read that the creator made them from the beginning male and female?
> and he added," For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and
> be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. It follows
> that they are no longer two individuals: they are one flesh."
> THEY ARE NO LONGER TWO INDIVIDUALS, THEY ARE ONE FLESH. They are
> reconciled to one another. Male does not replace female. They are one
> flesh. Jesus is describing the perfect marital state which is literally in
> the flesh, a reconciliation of male and female. The reconciliaiton of male
> and female in 22 and 114 in the GofT does not contradict this.
> Most importantly, these ideas from the Gof T and indeed the canonical
> gospels as above from Matthew do not constitute denigration of women but a
> recognition of female uniqueness and fundamental role in salvation. The
> texts are not ambivalent about male and female roles as modern society is
> trying to be.

Rich -

    Certainly 22 understands entrance into the kingdom of heaven as
involving androgynity. I don't think that's in question. But if I remember
correctly, you cited 114 to start with and that, simply read on its own
terms, does not speak of androgynity. You may of course harmonize the two
logia in the way you suggest and I don't think that's unreasonable, but I
don't see compelling reasons to do so. A text - & especially one which is
simply a list of sayings - may have some parts that are mutually
contradictory.

    But the original question had to do with whether or not Christian
eschatology involved a return to an initially perfect state - whether it
followed the Urzeit = Endzeit pattern of so many religions. I've given some
reasons for arguing against that idea, even though some elements of that
pattern are used in scripture. I think also that the kind of gender
reconciliation envisioned in Logion 22 could be seen as the result of
progress toward an as-yet unachieved ultimate future which is _not_ that of
an original paradisal state. I.e., even if one accepts Thomas as
authoritative, it doesn't compel acceptance of the Urzeit equals Endzeit
concept.

    Note also that in Eph.5:31-32 the statement from Gen.2 about the 2
becoming one flesh is understood in terms of Christ and the church.

    I should add that my view of biblical authority and the limits of the
canon does not depend simply on my feelings. It is not for individuals to
decree what is or isn't canonical. E.g., I like Logion 77 ("Split the wood;
I am there ..."), in part because it seems supportive of Lutheran
christology, but I don't have the right to quote it as authoritative
scripture.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Dec 4 17:13:24 2004