mfbukowski Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Is it justifiable to read so much into this? But what else could it mean? This is a fragment found in the Gospel of Thomas. The document, with my notes and further references, are here. This translation, with notes from G.R.S. Mead can be found here. But to me, I think the scholars I have seen miss the LDS context. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but I don't think so. There are so many detailed, sequential, parallels here I had to ask myself- what else could it mean?What do you think?
ebeddoulos Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I must be missing something. I do not mean to derail the thread but aside from guilt by association, what makes the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic? Teach me.
e=mc2 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Is it justifiable to read so much into this? But what else could it mean? This is a fragment found in the Gospel of Thomas. The document, with my notes and further references, are here. This translation, with notes from G.R.S. Mead can be found here. But to me, I think the scholars I have seen miss the LDS context. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but I don't think so. There are so many detailed, sequential, parallels here I had to ask myself- what else could it mean?What do you think?I believe this is the famous HYmn of the Pearl which both Nibley and Welch have written on a bit. Very interesting stuff!
mfbukowski Posted March 15, 2009 Author Posted March 15, 2009 I must be missing something. I do not mean to derail the thread but aside from guilt by association, what makes the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic? Teach me.I am not debating its origins or content- it is usually included as "Gnostic" because of its Nag Hammadi originsI believe this is the famous HYmn of the Pearl which both Nibley and Welch have written on a bit. Very interesting stuff!It is - and thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that and am glad for the references so that I can learn more.I would be interested though in more opinions on how justified is an LDS interpretation of this? Or is it coincidence? It seems to me that this is an important text that receives very little recognition
e=mc2 Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 I am not debating its origins or content- it is usually included as "Gnostic" because of its Nag Hammadi originsIt is - and thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that and am glad for the references so that I can learn more.I would be interested though in more opinions on how justified is an LDS interpretation of this? Or is it coincidence? It seems to me that this is an important text that receives very little recognitionI also did a *huge* study on it. Lemmee see if'n I can find it and reference it for you. No, you are correct! This is a significant document!
ebeddoulos Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 I am not debating its origins or content- it is usually included as "Gnostic" because of its Nag Hammadi originsI do not wish to debate you or anyone else on this issue. You have my most sincere apology if I came across as such. My earlier "Teach me" is a plea not a challenge. I am quite serious in wishing to learn. I am wondering if there is anything other than its Nag Hammadi origins that indicate that it is Gnostic. Are there distinctive Gnostic teachings or doctrine found within its text?I know nothing of the Coptic language. Zip, nade, nunca. I am totally dependent on translations. I have read the 1978 English translation by Thomas O. Lambdin, several times. I have also read the 2007 version translated by Marvin Meyer. I find them quite interesting. and totally unlike any of the Canonical Gospel but nothing I can quite point to and go "Ahh hah! That's Gnostic!" But I am the first to admit to being beyond ignorant on this subject. Which I why I wish to learn.
mfbukowski Posted March 15, 2009 Author Posted March 15, 2009 I do not wish to debate you or anyone else on this issue. You have my most sincere apology if I came across as such. My earlier "Teach me" is a plea not a challenge. I am quite serious in wishing to learn. I am wondering if there is anything other than its Nag Hammadi origins that indicate that it is Gnostic. Are there distinctive Gnostic teachings or doctrine found within its text?I know nothing of the Coptic language. Zip, nade, nunca. I am totally dependent on translations. I have read the 1978 English translation by Thomas O. Lambdin, several times. I have also read the 2007 version translated by Marvin Meyer. I find them quite interesting. and totally unlike any of the Canonical Gospel but nothing I can quite point to and go "Ahh hah! That's Gnostic!" But I am the first to admit to being beyond ignorant on this subject. Which I why I wish to learn.No problem! I am far far from an expert myself as is probably clear. I am definitely out of my element here. I think when it was first discovered the Gospel of Thomas was regarded more as Gnostic than it is today. As far as the Hymn of the Soul, I think the Gnostic elements would include its symbolic structure. And of course even a clear depiction of temple ordinances, if indeed such parallels can be seen here, presuppose a somewhat "Gnostic" view -- that there is hidden wisdom necessary for a higher degree of salvation. But of course those are very general points, and I don't think that answers your question.
mfbukowski Posted March 15, 2009 Author Posted March 15, 2009 No, you are correct! This is a significant document!I think it is unique in that it is hard to see in it an interpretation other than one that presupposes a context so close to ours that it is spooky.
e=mc2 Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 No problem! I am far far from an expert myself as is probably clear. I am definitely out of my element here. I think when it was first discovered the Gospel of Thomas was regarded more as Gnostic than it is today. As far as the Hymn of the Soul, I think the Gnostic elements would include its symbolic structure. And of course even a clear depiction of temple ordinances, if indeed such parallels can be seen here, presuppose a somewhat "Gnostic" view -- that there is hidden wisdom necessary for a higher degree of salvation. But of course those are very general points, and I don't think that answers your question.Last I heard many of the scholars, Elaine Pagels, Myer, etc., were saying Thomas is not Gnostic in the classical sense.
Strindberg Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 Last I heard many of the scholars, Elaine Pagels, Myer, etc., were saying Thomas is not Gnostic in the classical sense.What would make a document Gnostic in the classical sense? That is, what exactly are the essential elements of classical Gnosticism? Can it be boiled down to a few or several definitional points?
e=mc2 Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 What would make a document Gnostic in the classical sense? That is, what exactly are the essential elements of classical Gnosticism? Can it be boiled down to a few or several definitional points?I think they say that none of the Gnostic language is found in Thomas, nor the philosophy of the evil of matter, or the Demiurg, etc. It is truly and simply sayings of Jesus, which are not Gnostic at all. No talk of hypostatsias, or whatever it is. Nothing Gnostic is in Thomas.
Strindberg Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 I think they say that none of the Gnostic language is found in Thomas, nor the philosophy of the evil of matter, or the Demiurg, etc. It is truly and simply sayings of Jesus, which are not Gnostic at all. No talk of hypostatsias, or whatever it is. Nothing Gnostic is in Thomas.Interesting. Thanks. I believe I read the Gospel of Thomas once, a while back. I also read Pagels's book on it. If recollection serves, it's interesting that on the one hand it is not Gnostic in the terms indicated, but on the other hand it also does not have much to say about the core traditional doctrines: repentance, baptism, etc.
e=mc2 Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Interesting. Thanks. I believe I read the Gospel of Thomas once, a while back. I also read Pagels's book on it. If recollection serves, it's interesting that on the one hand it is not Gnostic in the terms indicated, but on the other hand it also does not have much to say about the core traditional doctrines: repentance, baptism, etc.Yes. It is actually more of a real teaching manual, interesting enough! It doesn't have any Valentinianism in it, nor much of the teachings or parallels to Basilides or even Hermeticism, nor the mystical ethereal teachings of the Books of Jeu or Pistis Sophia either. It's just sort of an anomalie is all..... as such Myer and Barnstone label it (and I largely agree with the label) A "Wisdom Gospel." (The Gnostic Bible, [2006]: 43).
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2009 Author Posted March 16, 2009 I also did a *huge* study on it. Lemmee see if'n I can find it and reference it for you. No, you are correct! This is a significant document!Do you feel that my "veil" interpretation is justified for the robe of glory? Are you aware of any sources online or elsewhere for the text in the original languages?
Joseph Antley Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 The Hymn of the Pearl isn't part of the Gospel of Thomas (which isn't very Gnostic at all). I would guess that you mean the Acts of Thomas, not the Gospel, from which I think this hymn (which certainly has Gnostic interpretations) comes from.That said, I've always loved the Hymn of the Pearl. It certainly has LDS applications as well as Gnostic ones. Seek truth from wherever it can be found....
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2009 Author Posted March 16, 2009 The Hymn of the Pearl isn't part of the Gospel of Thomas (which isn't very Gnostic at all). I would guess that you mean the Acts of Thomas, not the Gospel, from which I think this hymn (which certainly has Gnostic interpretations) comes from.That said, I've always loved the Hymn of the Pearl. It certainly has LDS applications as well as Gnostic ones. Seek truth from wherever it can be found....Well, you are right of course. But I would love to discuss the content of the Hymn and its interpretation rather than its provenance. Obviously whether or not it is Gnostic bears significantly on its interpretation. What are the LDS applications you see? You must see "truth" in it; what are those truths?My poor scholarship nothwithstanding, in the OP I asked if we are justified in seeing the interpretations I made, and those are the issues I would love to discuss. That is what bears after all on the "truth" of the document and how much importance it has or should have to LDS readers.I am not sure about you, but the whole reason I am interested in these ancient manuscripts is for the truth they give us, and that is the important question in my mind. Is this an ancient parallel for portions of our temple ceremonies, and does it somehow give creedance to those ordinances as having ancient roots -- that is the question I am interested in. The alternative is that we are seeking justification for our faith in the wrong places.
Joseph Antley Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Yes, the Hymn of the Pearl is one of my favorite early Christian documents. What makes it so mysterious and open to interpretation is that we have little historical context for it; it certainly didn't originate in the Acts of Thomas. Personally I've always felt it maintained an early toned-down version of Christian Gnosticism that preserved some of the teachings lost by the growing "orthodox" movement, such as the doctrines of spirit pre-existence and the need to obtain divine knowledge (an universal Gnostic theme) to return to God.I haven't read your interpretations yet but I have read Mead's, and I disagree with him on a number of things (primarily how he inserts the Hymn into a later Thomasine Gnostic context, which I think is incorrect). I'll probably respond later in greater detail.
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2009 Author Posted March 16, 2009 Yes, the Hymn of the Pearl is one of my favorite early Christian documents. What makes it so mysterious and open to interpretation is that we have little historical context for it; it certainly didn't originate in the Acts of Thomas. Personally I've always felt it maintained an early toned-down version of Christian Gnosticism that preserved some of the teachings lost by the growing "orthodox" movement, such as the doctrines of spirit pre-existence and the need to obtain divine knowledge (an universal Gnostic theme) to return to God.I haven't read your interpretations yet but I have read Mead's, and I disagree with him on a number of things (primarily how he inserts the Hymn into a later Thomasine Gnostic context, which I think is incorrect). I'll probably respond later in greater detail.Please do!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.