Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-01-2009, 02:55 PM

Thanks DCHindley,

A very interesting exercise you have framed, and one which many have already undertaken. Robin Lane-Fox makes the following comments about the Nag Hammadi codices, and specifically the NHC 6.6 version of Plato ...

Quote:

p.414: Nag Hammadi Library - in Upper Egypt, near Nile
12 books (codices) with leaves from a 13th in jar (1945)
Consistent of 57 Coptic tracts; "spurious gospels".
But "none of the "gnostic christians" wrote/read Coptic."

"The collection is not a single library, not uniformly heretical, nor even entirely christian."
includes a poor trans of Plato's republic, and a pagan letter of "Eugnostos the Blessed"
the letter was then given a christian preface and a conclusion and represented in another copy
as the "wisdom" which Jesus revealed to his Apostles after his death.

p.659
The libraries extract from Plato (mistranslated in Coptic) refers to the virtue of ...
"casting down every image of the evil Beast and trampling on them, together with the image of the Lion.
Monks were the supreme destroyers of pagan's religious art, the "image of the Beast and Lion".

As I had not looked at the sources comparitively before, your raw materials were appreciated. Setting all this aside, the question then arises ... Why did the NHC authors present a purposefully corrupted version of Plato's Republic? And what exactly are the differences and similarities between the two texts and what do these differences and similarities actually tell us?

I have some ideas in this regard, and I would be interested in hearing if you (or others) have seen anything "obviously different" between the two versions. Also, it is imperative that a date of authorship is attributed to the coptic Plato text IMO. The C14 dating says mid-fourth century.

As this is not a christian text, I hope that I will not have any problems when I assert that the Plato NHC 6.4 has probably not been tediously copied for centuries but was in fact authored close to the mid-fourth century (when we think via C14 the codices were published.) My ideas relate to the deliberate use of Plato's Republic by the gnostics to tell us story of oppression by a many-headed monster that got loose in the external world (in the republic) at that time in history. INJUSTICE

The original plato is balanced. It appears to be an allegory discussing self-control over disparate parts. The many headed monster is the lower nature of man, the lion is courage of the animal nature, and man is represented as "greater" but at the same time as part of the symbiosis of the entire mixture. (Man has his own inner natures to seek command over -- KNOW THYSELF)

The coptic version OTOH is (IMO) trying to tell us a story by omission and contrast with the original. If we accept the chronology of mid-fourth century then we know that land tax had tripled in living memory in the year 350 CE and that the chrysargon (poll tax) had also been implemented by Constantine (and continued under Constantius). Nag Hammadi was a remote refuge pioneered by Pachomius (another story and thread) for more than a generation.

The coptic appears to present an externalisation of Plato's allegory as if it had just now happened in the past tense. At the end, there is no symbiosis of the inner parts of the psychology of man, but a stark external reality where the men and the farmers are essentially at the mercy of wild beasts. Reading what Ammianus Marcellenus has to say about this epoch around the mid-fifth century is also mandatory stuff. The times were not good for the common people or the aristocracy. The highways were covered with galloping bishops. The NHC were published remotely during an epoch of malevolent despotism (political and social INJUSTICE) from the new christian emperors (Constantine and his son Constantius ... 312 to 360 CE). The authors of the NHC were gnostics: their "christian status" (if any) is yet to be understood. It is better just to examine the evidence.

Final point. This coptic Plato is derived from the 6th codex. All the tractates in the 6th codex are heavily pagan with the exception of the very first codex which has the strange name "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles". Now we either have one codex which is a combination of one christian story and many pagan stories, or this TAOPATTA is not a "simple christian narrative" and the entire codex six is a gnostic work.

Best wishes,

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Exactly. To see how differently Gnostic thought differed from Platonic thought, one could compare translations of the passage from Plato's Republic 588a-589b from the Nag Hammadi finds to modern translations of the original Greek text.

Codex VI, 5:

"Since we have come to this point in a discussion, let us again take up the first things that were said to us.

And we will find that he says, 'Good is he who has been done injustice completely. He is glorified justly.' Is not this how he was reproached?"
"This is certainly the fitting way!"

And I said, "Now then, we have spoken because he said that he who does injustice and he who does justice each has a force."

''How then?"

"He said, 'An image that has no likeness is the rationality of soul,' so that he who said these things will understand.

He [...] or not?

We [...] is for me. But all [...] who told them [...] ruler, these now have become natural creatures - even Chimaera and Cerberus and all the rest that were mentioned. They all came down and they cast off forms and images. And they all became a single image.

It was said, 'Work now!'

Certainly it is a single image that became the image of a complex beast with many heads. Some days indeed it is like the image of a wild beast. Then it is able to cast off the first image. And all these hard and difficult forms emanate from it with effort, since these are formed now with arrogance.

And also all the rest that are like them are formed now through the word. For now it is a single image.

For the image of the lion is the one thing and the image of the man is another. [...] single [...] is the [...] of [...] join. And this [...] much more complex than the first. And the second is small."

"It has been formed."

"Now then, join them to each other and make them a single one - for they are three - so that they grow together, and all are in a single image outside of the image of the man just like him who is unable to see the things inside him. But what is outside only is what he sees. And it is apparent what creature his image is in and that he was formed in a human image.

"And I spoke to him who said that there is profit in the doing of injustice for the man. He who does injustice truly does not profit nor does he benefit.

But what is profitable for him is this: that he cast down every image of the evil beast and trample them along with the images of the lion.

But the man is in weakness in this regard. And all the things that he does are weak. As a result he is drawn to the place where he spends time with them. [...]. And he [...] to him in[...]. But he brings about [...] enmity [...]. And with strife they devour each other among themselves.

Yes, all these things he said to everyone who praises the doing of injustice."

"Then is it not profitable for him who speaks justly?"

"And if he does these things and speaks in them, within the man they take hold firmly.

Therefore especially he strives to take care of them and he nourishes them just like the farmer nourishes his produce daily. And the wild beasts keep it from growing."

[Translated by James Brashler, James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990]
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/plato.html

Plato, Republic, Book IX (588a-589b):

[588a] “And now that we have come to this point in the argument, [588b] let us take up again the statement with which we began and that has brought us to this pass.

It was, I believe, averred that injustice is profitable to the completely unjust197 man who is reputed just. Was not that the proposition?”

“Yes, that.”

“Let us, then, reason with its proponent now that we have agreed on the essential nature of injustice and just conduct.”

“How?” he said.

“By fashioning in our discourse a symbolic image of the soul, that the maintainer of that proposition may see precisely what it is that he was saying.”

[588c] “What sort of an image?” he said.

“One of those natures that the ancient fables tell of,” said I, “as that of the Chimaera or Scylla or Cerberus, and the numerous other examples that are told of many forms grown together in one.”

“Yes, they do tell of them.”

“Mould, then, a single shape of a manifold and many-headed beast that has a ring of heads of tame and wild beasts and can change them and cause to spring forth from itself all such growths.”

[588d] “It is the task of a cunning artist,” he said, “but nevertheless, since speech is more plastic than wax and other such media, assume that it has been so fashioned.”

“Then fashion one other form of a lion and one of a man and let the first be far the largest and the second second in size.” “That is easier,” he said, “and is done.” “Join the three in one, then, so as in some sort to grow together.”

“They are so united,” he said.

“Then mould about them outside the likeness of one, that of the man, so that to anyone who is unable [588e] to look within but who can see only the external sheath it appears to be one living creature, the man.”

“The sheath is made fast about him,” he said.

“Let us, then say to the speaker who avers that it pays this man to be unjust, and that to do justice is not for his advantage,

that he is affirming nothing else than that it profits him to feast and make strong the multifarious beast and the lion and all that pertains to the lion,

[589a] but to starve the man and so enfeeble him that he can be pulled about whithersoever either of the others drag him, and not to familiarize or reconcile with one another the two creatures but suffer them to bite and fight and devour one another.”

“Yes,” he said, “that is precisely what the panegyrist of injustice will be found to say.”

“And on the other hand he who says that justice is the more profitable affirms that all our actions and words should tend to give the man within us [589b] complete domination over the entire man

and make him take charge of the many-headed beast--like a farmer who cherishes and trains the cultivated plants but checks the growth of the wild--and he will make an ally of the lion's nature, and caring for all the beasts alike will first make them friendly to one another and to himself, and so foster their growth.”

[Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6 translated by Paul Shorey. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1969.]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...t.+Rep.+9.571a

Anyone so inclined can copy these two passages as they are here, and paste them one at a time into a two column table in MS word, and they individual parts of the exchange should line up side by side, perhaps with a little twinking.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I think if someone refers to Hitler as liberal then it should try to be understood in the context of the conversation, not that Hitler should be understood exactly as a modern liberal. Like when I say that Gnostics are Platonic, it just means that the ideology should often be understood from a philosophical/platonic light not that they thought exactly like Plato.

mountainman · 03-01-2009, 06:48 PM

The Many-Headed Monster loose in Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi - Plato's Republic at NHC 6.6. Thanks again for the inspiration Dave, and for hauling out the raw material for the tabulation. A draft start is better than no start.

DCHindley · 03-01-2009, 08:08 PM

Well actually it is Codex 6, book 5. Your web page says 6.4, and you just said 6.6.

One thing I did notice about these two texts was that republic 588d-589b seems to be the subtext to Gospel of Thomas saying #7.

Republic

[588d] ... “Then fashion one other form of a lion and one of a man and let the first be far the largest and the second second in size.” ... “Join the three in one, then, so as in some sort to grow together.” ... “Then mould about them outside the likeness of one, that of the man, so that to anyone who is unable [588e] to look within but who can see only the external sheath it appears to be one living creature, the man.” ... “Let us, then say to the speaker who avers that it pays this man to be unjust, and that to do justice is not for his advantage, that he is affirming nothing else than that it profits him to feast and make strong the multifarious beast and the lion and all that pertains to the lion, [589a] but to starve the man and so enfeeble him that he can be pulled about whithersoever either of the others drag him, and not to familiarize or reconcile with one another the two creatures but suffer them to bite and fight and devour one another.” ... “And on the other hand he who says that justice is the more profitable affirms that all our actions and words should tend to give the man within us [589b] complete domination over the entire man and make him take charge of the many-headed beast--like a farmer who cherishes and trains the cultivated plants but checks the growth of the wild--and he will make an ally of the lion's nature, and caring for all the beasts alike will first make them friendly to one another and to himself, and so foster their growth.”

Gospel of Thomas 7:

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

Of course, I am not the first to notice this. See The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the Platonic Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk) (SBL Dissertation Series 81): Howard M. Jackson and Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction (or via: amazon.co.uk) (p.113) by Hans-Josef Klauck, Brian McNeil, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003 on Google books

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Many-Headed Monster loose in Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi - Plato's Republic at NHC 6.6. Thanks again for the inspiration Dave, and for hauling out the raw material for the tabulation. A draft start is better than no start.

mountainman · 03-01-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well actually it is Codex 6, book 5. Your web page says 6.4, and you just said 6.6.

Thanks DCHindley, I've fixed those references.

Quote:

One thing I did notice about these two texts was that republic 588d-589b seems to be the subtext to Gospel of Thomas saying #7.

Republic

[588d] ... “Then fashion one other form of a lion and one of a man and let the first be far the largest and the second second in size.” ... “Join the three in one, then, so as in some sort to grow together.” ... “Then mould about them outside the likeness of one, that of the man, so that to anyone who is unable [588e] to look within but who can see only the external sheath it appears to be one living creature, the man.” ... “Let us, then say to the speaker who avers that it pays this man to be unjust, and that to do justice is not for his advantage, that he is affirming nothing else than that it profits him to feast and make strong the multifarious beast and the lion and all that pertains to the lion, [589a] but to starve the man and so enfeeble him that he can be pulled about whithersoever either of the others drag him, and not to familiarize or reconcile with one another the two creatures but suffer them to bite and fight and devour one another.” ... “And on the other hand he who says that justice is the more profitable affirms that all our actions and words should tend to give the man within us [589b] complete domination over the entire man and make him take charge of the many-headed beast--like a farmer who cherishes and trains the cultivated plants but checks the growth of the wild--and he will make an ally of the lion's nature, and caring for all the beasts alike will first make them friendly to one another and to himself, and so foster their growth.”

Gospel of Thomas 7:

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

You also have the lions in the first tractate (NHC 6.1) of the same book as Plato's "mistranslation":
"The Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles" (or is it 11 in the text or 13 by the title)?

The Lions & Beasts on the Road to the City of the Pearl of Great Price

"And also (concerning) the road to the city, which you asked me about, I will tell you about it.
No man is able to go on that road, except one who has forsaken everything that he has and has fasted daily from stage to stage.
For many are the robbers and wild beasts on that road.

The one who carries bread with him on the road, the black dogs kill because of the bread.
The one who carries a costly garment of the world with him, the robbers kill because of the garment.
The one who carries water with him, the wolves kill because of the water, since they were thirsty for it.
The one who is anxious about meat and green vegetables, the lions eat because of the meat.
If he evades the lions, the bulls devour him because of the green vegetables."

...[...]...

He said to me, "This is the name of my city, 'Nine Gates.'
Let us praise God as we are mindful that the tenth is the head."

All very gnostic, non-christian and Gita-like. The bulls and vegetables hint at vegetarianism.

The Plato story is intriguing. By its omission from the original it appears to be telling the reader a story. I was impressed by Plato's "Cave Allegory" in the past, and was not really aware of this one. Here I think the allegory is about the notions of justice and self-governance. What do you think? Do you happen to know of any commentaries on this extract from Plato, which confirm it is an allegory?

Best wishes,

Pete

gentleexit · 03-01-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Enneads II 9

I thought you were supposed to be showing that the evil demiurge is a central tenet of the Gnostics and because of that it shouldn’t be considered platonic.

Ok. Platonus characterizes them as a school who "know nothing good here: all they care for is something else ... some future time" and what's more they "declaim(s) against its plan and its Architect" (evil world, evil maker).

BUT for man of Plato, "this world ... must be the starting point". "This world descends from the the Firsts; if this world has no beauty, neither does its source" (a good source means a good world).

His doctrines are "all emphatically asserted by Plato". They should not "procure assent for their own theories by flaying and flouting the Greeks."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

It seems like you have a labeling issue going on.

Yes too many. Superstitious, supernatural, metaphysics, rational and all framed in violent opposition. And we're circling, label throwing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I’m simply trying to ask if you think the philosophers understood their gods as rational forces in the universe or you should take the art/poetry literally and believed in anthropomorphic spiritual agents at work.

Plotinus: "Every evildoer began by despising the gods ... (and with) this slighting of the mundane gods and the world, the honor they profess for the gods of the intellectual sphere becomes an inconsistency ... where there is contempt for the Kin of the supreme, the knowledge of the supreme itself is merely verbal." Does he answer you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I’m still confused on how you are interpreting the myth and allegory. Are you interpreting them rationally or interpreting them on an assumed supernatural/superstitious position? ...
Both are those are rational arguments. But when you are going from light/logos/wisdom being a wave/form/ideal to being a magical spiritual entity it’s a whole other ball game.

Rational. It's one of those loaded words that let us argue. If you have a logically constructed scheme, derived from clearly stated assumptions, is it rational? Or can it only be rational if its conclusions can be tested in a repeatable way in the material world? If you need the latter, then Platonism is irrational. Otherwise, it has enough ballast to be considered rational.

The use of allegory (which is a form of exposition, nothing more) doesn't make something irrational or rational. Neither does prose or poetry (was the Epicure Lucretius rational?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Finally let me say, I'm not arguing there was no reuse of Greek words by Jews, no overlap of concept either by selective barrowing or just coincidence but I do think it's important not to throw around "Platonist" so readily. There was a German who advocated vegetarianism and campaigned against smoking. Hitler was no liberal. Those attributes are superficial when it comes to being a liberal.
Easy use and we get "gnosticism is popular platonism" or the sort of summary of Platonism we talked about earlier. These reduce Platonism to isolated terms and quotes, window dressing for "more important" movements like Gnostics or Christians.

I think if someone refers to Hitler as liberal then it should try to be understood in the context of the conversation, not that Hitler should be understood exactly as a modern liberal. Like when I say that Gnostics are Platonic, it just means that the ideology should often be understood from a philosophical/platonic light not that they thought exactly like Plato.

Ok so to be clear. Gnostic, liberal, Platonist are very very broad terms for you. You are just saying that Gnostics are as Platonist as Hitler was a liberal?

andrewcriddle · 03-02-2009, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I should probably note that I have been reading today some recent work by Ruth Majercik about the relation of Zostrianos et al to the writings of Porphyry, and I am less convinced than I was that the Platonising Sethian Texts are pre-Plotinian in their present form.
Andrew Criddle

BTW, this is all a fascinating swurl. Whether Plotinus' gnostics were Zostrianos etc., the influence of the Chaldean Oracles on everyone (post Plotinus), was Numenius Jewish?, what was going on in Apamea (Numenius there, Iamblichus later)? For one, I only have bits and pieces in my head now but I'd like to know more.

One interesting claim by Majercik is that the notorious passage from Zostrianos

Quote:

Flee from the madness and the bondage of femaleness and choose for yourselves the salvation of maleness.

is based on Porphyry's Letter to his Wife Marcella (from Roger's excellent web site).

Quote:

Flee all that is womanish in the soul, as though thou hadst a man's body about thee.

.

(This is part of a general argument about the relation of the Sethian Platonising Texts to Porphyry.)

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 03-02-2009, 04:59 AM

In GoT 7 you can clearly see the juxtaposition of the ideas of a lion somehow inside of a man's body versus the man being devoured by the lion inside of him, which are found in the passage in Plato's Republic, using metaphors about one "consuming" the other. In the Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles the lion looks like one of many obstacles one might encounter along a road, no matter who you are. Maybe a lion is sometimes just a lion?

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well actually it is Codex 6, book 5. Your web page says 6.4, and you just said 6.6.

Thanks DCHindley, I've fixed those references.

Quote:

One thing I did notice about these two texts was that republic 588d-589b seems to be the subtext to Gospel of Thomas saying #7.

Republic

[588d] ... “Then fashion one other form of a lion and one of a man and let the first be far the largest and the second second in size.” ... “Join the three in one, then, so as in some sort to grow together.” ... “Then mould about them outside the likeness of one, that of the man, so that to anyone who is unable [588e] to look within but who can see only the external sheath it appears to be one living creature, the man.” ... “Let us, then say to the speaker who avers that it pays this man to be unjust, and that to do justice is not for his advantage, that he is affirming nothing else than that it profits him to feast and make strong the multifarious beast and the lion and all that pertains to the lion, [589a] but to starve the man and so enfeeble him that he can be pulled about whithersoever either of the others drag him, and not to familiarize or reconcile with one another the two creatures but suffer them to bite and fight and devour one another.” ... “And on the other hand he who says that justice is the more profitable affirms that all our actions and words should tend to give the man within us [589b] complete domination over the entire man and make him take charge of the many-headed beast--like a farmer who cherishes and trains the cultivated plants but checks the growth of the wild--and he will make an ally of the lion's nature, and caring for all the beasts alike will first make them friendly to one another and to himself, and so foster their growth.”

Gospel of Thomas 7:

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

You also have the lions in the first tractate (NHC 6.1) of the same book as Plato's "mistranslation":
"The Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles" (or is it 11 in the text or 13 by the title)?

The Lions & Beasts on the Road to the City of the Pearl of Great Price

"And also (concerning) the road to the city, which you asked me about, I will tell you about it.
No man is able to go on that road, except one who has forsaken everything that he has and has fasted daily from stage to stage.
For many are the robbers and wild beasts on that road.

The one who carries bread with him on the road, the black dogs kill because of the bread.
The one who carries a costly garment of the world with him, the robbers kill because of the garment.
The one who carries water with him, the wolves kill because of the water, since they were thirsty for it.
The one who is anxious about meat and green vegetables, the lions eat because of the meat.
If he evades the lions, the bulls devour him because of the green vegetables."

...[...]...

He said to me, "This is the name of my city, 'Nine Gates.'
Let us praise God as we are mindful that the tenth is the head."

All very gnostic, non-christian and Gita-like. The bulls and vegetables hint at vegetarianism.

The Plato story is intriguing. By its omission from the original it appears to be telling the reader a story. I was impressed by Plato's "Cave Allegory" in the past, and was not really aware of this one. Here I think the allegory is about the notions of justice and self-governance. What do you think? Do you happen to know of any commentaries on this extract from Plato, which confirm it is an allegory?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 03-02-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

In GoT 7 you can clearly see the juxtaposition of the ideas of a lion somehow inside of a man's body versus the man being devoured by the lion inside of him, which are found in the passage in Plato's Republic, using metaphors about one "consuming" the other.

I have read a number of accounts of this correlation to the gThomas (NHC 2.2 and the subject of the C14 test) such as here.

Further reading on Plato has prompted me to tabulate a correlation between the Many-Headed Beast, The Lion and the Man, following the commentary on this page as follows ...

Parts of the Psyche: (1) reasoning, (2) energetic, (3) appetites.
Virtues (Excellences at): (1) wisdom, (2) Courage, (3) temperance
Highest Values: (1) truth, (2) glory, honor, (3) possessing, consuming
Parts of the Polis: (1) guardian class, (2) military, (3) producers/consumers
Allegory of Human Sybiosis: (1) Man, (2) Lion, (3) Many-Headed monster

I have also attempted to segment the NHC Plato page into seven sections so that each section can be examined. Three sections look more or less much the same, but at least three sections appear modified from the Plato original.

Quote:

In the Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles the lion looks like one of many obstacles one might encounter along a road, no matter who you are.

The lion is used in a different allegory in TAOPATTA.

Quote:

Maybe a lion is sometimes just a lion?

Certainly. And sometimes it is not necessarily an advantage to read between the lions.

Best wishes,

Pete

gentleexit · 03-02-2009, 09:32 AM

First, DCH, thx for posting the Plato and its garbling. Contrasts really get you back to the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you happen to know of any commentaries on this extract from Plato, which confirm it is an allegory?

When he treats the self (I), Plotinus invokes Rep IX 588 when he says "the soul wields single lordship over the animate. He invokes it again when he alludes to "what Plato calls the interior man" as he draws parallels between the balance in the three levels of divinity and within ourselves. Proclus (last of the Platonists really) wrote many commentaries on the dialogs including the Republic and his works survive. That's probably worth consulting too.

BTW, it's not allegory (the simile is explicit, the story doesn't stand alone), more standard metaphors for the forces within and without us. One thing that jumps out from the Greeks is how flat and image-less our prose is.

You are spot on when you say (on your page) "there is no symbiosis of the inner parts of the psychology of man" in the coptic "translation". Plato saw (and wrote) the opposite and his successors elaborated on his position. This is another example of piecemeal selection from Platonism, forcing words to mean their opposite.

Again it shows the danger of labeling any old thought "Platonist", just because it garbles texts or echo's terms. Surely something can't be its opposite?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

One thing I did notice about these two texts was that republic 588d-589b seems to be the subtext to Gospel of Thomas saying #7. ...
Gospel of Thomas 7:

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

AND
"The Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles" (or is it 11 in the text or 13 by the title)?

The Lions & Beasts on the Road to the City of the Pearl of Great Price

I think the image of a lion (sheep with the lion etc.) is a commonplace for every culture then (lions roamed everywhere!). There are only so many tropes. I don't think we can credit its use to Plato either in general or for human nature.

gentleexit · 03-02-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One interesting claim by Majercik is that the notorious passage from Zostrianos

Quote:

Flee from the madness and the bondage of femaleness and choose for yourselves the salvation of maleness.

is based on Porphyry's Letter to his Wife Marcella (from Roger's excellent web site).

Quote:

Flee all that is womanish in the soul, as though thou hadst a man's body about thee.

What do you think? I think back then everyone was Henry Higgins ("why can't a woman be more like a man?"). Woman meant passions. What was it Tiresias told Zeus and Hera about sexual pleasure: "for every part man receives, woman gets nine" (sic). It's possible one of the above statements led directly to the other but it's also possible that this was the pervading sentiment. What's more, Zostrianos' statement is much stronger than Porphyry's.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2009, 06:48 PM	#42
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	The Many-Headed Monster loose in Plato's Republic at Nag Hammadi - Plato's Republic at NHC 6.6. Thanks again for the inspiration Dave, and for hauling out the raw material for the tabulation. A draft start is better than no start.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.