Making Mary Male: the Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas
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
The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity
When Maximus the Confessor (seventh century) takes the "corners" of the Jerusalem wall (2 Chronicles 26:9) as a type of "the various unions (henoseis) of the divided creatures which were effected through Christ,"' we might once have assumed that he is indulging in rhetorical fancy. Similarly, we might have dismissed his chief example of such henosis as the hyperbole of a Byzantine ascetic: "For he [sc. Christ] unified man, mystically abolishing by the Spirit the difference between male and female and, in place of the two with their peculiar passions, constituting one free with respect to nature."2 Now, however, the Nag Hammadi texts have reminded us of the extent to which the unification of opposites, This inquiry was made possible by a summer stipend from the National Endowment for the Humanities, grant F-71-74, and by a triennial leave from Yale University. I am deeply grateful to both institutions. Excerpts from it have been presented as lectures at Harvard Divinity School, Dubuque Theological Seminary, Brown University, and the University of Chicago. Many colleagues have helped me by their suggestions and criticisms, especially Elaine Pagels, Abraham Malherbe, Jonathan Smith, Jacob Neusner, and Cyril Richardson. 1 Maximus the Confessor, Questiones ad Thalassium 48 (Migne, Patrologia graeca 90, 436A). I am grateful to Prof. Jaroslav Pelikan for calling my attention to this passage. 2 Ibid. The other pairs of opposites mentioned by Maximus here are: "The sensible paradise and the inhabited world," "earth and heaven," "the sensible and the intelligible," "the created and the uncreated nature." Earlier in the same section (p. 435C) he speaks of the church as "the union of the two peoples, that of the gentiles and that of the Jews, having Christ as the bond" (av'ova,uos; cf. Ephesians 2:14 f.).
The Original Doctrine of Valentine
The writings of Valentine, the Christian gnostic who lived about 150 after Christ, are lost: only a few fragments remain. His pupils were divided into different schools, the so-called Italic school, of which Ptolemaus and Heracleon were the leaders, and the Oriental school, to which among others Theodotus belonged. The antiheretic authors transmit ample and very contradictory accounts of their systems. How much of their opinions goes back to the founder of the sect, is still uncertain. Valentinianism therefore is generally considered to be "ein wiister Trimmerhaufen der sich zu einem verstiindlichen Bau nicht mehr zusammenfiigen will" 1). This is a deplorable situation, because Valentine seems to have been a person of some importance, who exercised a considerable influence on Christian theology. Moreover, the interpretation, translation, and emendation of the Refutatio of Irenaeus, the Panarion of Epiphanius, the Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clemens Alexandrinus, the Refutatio of Hippolytus and the booklet of Tertullianus adversus Valentinianos are involved, if the information they contain cannot be understood. So Valentinianism offers a tempting problem to the puzzled mind. Are the antiheretic writers to be blamed for dishonesty to their opponents? Is there some evidence in our sources, which leads us to suppose that pupils changed the doctrine of their master? Will the outlines of the