But I don't think Jesus was talking about a sex change operation. I think something metaphorically was intended. That said it does come off as rather sexist.
Oh it was absolutely metaphorical. And while I don’t entirely agree with Ehrman’s description, I read it when I first started studying Gnosticism, so it is simpler than better explanations I might paraphrase and much better than trying to express my interpretation. Namely, the logion posits a spiritual hierarchy, something fairly universal in so-called gnostic texts (though by no means in one form). The highest levels were not of this world, while the lowest were non-living things. All humans, of course, had to attain a “spiritual level” beyond that born with (usually beyond the world born in). However, females, being “lower” than males, had an extra step. Only by reaching the spiritual stage of males could they then enter the kingdom of heaven. The fact that it is metaphorical doesn’t seem to me to make it less sexist.
Nor is it unique to the Gospel of Thomas:
“Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, “Do not weep and do not grieve or be irresolute, for his grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather let us praise his greatness,
for he has prepared us and made us into men.” When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Saviour” (
Gospel of Mary, 5.2-5)
To quote Pagel’s
The Gnostic Gospels on this logion, “Strange as it sounds, this simply states what religious rhetoric assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women are allowed to participate only when they assimilate themselves to men.”
There is controversy over considering Thomas a Gnostic work. The majority of Gnostic texts take a very positive view of women as equals, or even in some cases superior, to men.
There’s controversy over whether Gnosticism refers to any meaningful category at all (as you know, I believe; if memory serves you’ve read Williams’
Rethinking Gnosticism). But I think we’d both probably think of most of the same texts and persons if asked about Gnosticism, even if we might not agree that a particular text or person should be considered gnostic. Within the surviving sources it is certainly true that there are instances in which women are given pride of place, favored, or otherwise shown to be anything but lesser than their male counter-parts. That said, a good deal of literature on the subject has exploited a combination of the dichotomous nature of our sources (surviving descriptions and quotations in polemical writings by heresy hunters vs. Gnostic texts themselves) as well as the rather ubiquitous ambiguity in already arcane, cryptic texts. Not that this is unique to this particular issue- it’s a general problem for the study of Gnosticism in general. However, there are few topics that garnered as much treatment by notable feminist scholars (Karen King, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Elaine Pagels, RIane Eisler, etc.) as well as popular “treatments” (from Freke & Gandy to
The Da Vinci Code) as the status of women in Gnostic circles compared to other early Christian traditions (which are frequently portrayed as singular, and in fact in popular portrayals we find a dichotomous early Christianity).
One of the things that the amazing
Nag Hammadi finds provided us with was a way to check the veracity of the polemical writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. It turns out that they were pretty faithful to what we find in the now much increased number of Gnostic texts. It becomes, then, less easy to simply dismiss as biased lies what e.g., Irenaeus says of a certain Marcos:
“this Gnostic prophet has a predilection for seducing wealthy, well-bred women by words. First, he states to his female audience that he wishes to share his Charis with them. The Charis is a seed of light, which needs containment in the female recipient's body. So, the woman must receive the bridegroom, whose conduit is Marcos himself. He says, "Receive from me a spouse and become receptive of him, while thou art received by him. Behold Charis has descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy.” (
Adv. Haer. 1.13.3).
After the women prophesy, Marcos has sex with them. He also used male disciples to recruit more women for the same purposes. Such descriptions (true or false) are the kind of information that we can’t usually get from Gnostic texts. Then there is the fact that usually the passages cited most often in support of a generally “proto-feminism” amongst Gnostics refer to one woman: Mary. I don’t find Shoemaker’s argument that this was a fictional “amalgam” of various Marys (Jesus’ mother, Mary of Magdala, Mary of Nazareth, and none of the above) all that strong. However, he takes to an extreme what is a far more supportable point: Mary’s identity in many a so-called Gnostic text is as an anti-Peter more than anything else.
Then there is Sophia, as presented in those texts which provide us with something like a “Gnostic” cosmology. On the one hand, her name itself means wisdom, she it is who play, if not the rose, than a role as savior, and so on. On the other hand, she wrecked the cosmos. Her offspring is usually the one most descriptions equate (if they do) to Satan or some equivalent. However, he and the flawed world he created were both due to Sophia’s disobedience due to pride similar to the (still developing)
mythos of Satan as fallen from grace due to similar actions. She is not the ultimate source for spiritual enlightenment and freedom from world that should not have been, but rather responsible for the separation of all humans from the perfection that encapsulated all before she “fell from wisdom into folly” (sorry, couldn’t resist the play on her words with the chance to quote Tolkien).
I could go on forever about this, but I’ve said enough. I think that popular conceptions of the status of women in gnostic circles was first over-estimated by notable feminist scholars and then turned into fantasy in more popular authors (as well as into a novel, but that’s another matter). That said, I don’t think we can simply write off any and all seemingly pro-female references as designed only to undermine competitors nor all male-female gendered passages as hierarchal the way we clearly see in Thomas and some other places, but rather that many texts promote a sort of androgyny or sexlessness. And of course there was no singular doctrine we can call “Gnostic”. Basically, I think too much effort has been expended on demonstrating pro-feminine/proto-feminist views among gnostics and too little on misogyny/sexism within at least some gnostic circles, while the reverse is true within canonical Christian texts and so-called “orthodox” Christian authors.
