Reflective Lenten Reading: Reaction to The Treatise On Resurrection NHC I4, Introduction by Einar Thomassen Translated by Marvin Meyer from The Nag Hammadi Scriptures the revised and updated translation of sacred Gnostic texts
It's a big dense text I am reading this Lenten Season; 844 pages of scholarly discourse and translated ancient texts. I have read the majority of the translated texts already, but they were all earlier translations and done by different people. The other thing that is so interesting about this collection is the surmised chronological organization of the texts. It adds a different subtle layer of perspective when considering both the scholarly introduction to each text and the translation itself. I'm not that far into the book yet. It takes some time to make notes and really digest the "meat" of the text. In some of the cases I have found the introduction helpful and informative. In other cases I have found the introduction to be prejudicial and miopic. In the case for the chapter I read this morning, I found the introduction a bit of both.
Thomassen goes into fairly deep detail to outline the themes of Duality in both the scripture itself and the history of the time the codex was belived to have been written as well as found. Thomassen interprets the author's intention as a definition of what is/was correct umong Christianology, and was indeed what differentiated Valentinianism and Orthodoxy, or the ideology of East vs. West. It is fascinating to see this age old dichotomy of thought and reason played out in this forum and much of the cultural dischord of present day is present in the scripture itself. It truly is accurate to say there is nothing new under the sun.
In the first section of The Treatise, the author is addressing the work in letter form to Rheginus, an unknown person other than in the context of this text. Immediately my mind goes to Rheginus and am bummed out that there is no surviving copy of his correspondence to the author. I can only imagine what his inquiry was. The author of this Treatise is most certainly a clergy member, as he addresses Rheginus as "my son" a term reserved for clergy with the title of "Father". My own experience in speaking with clergy is they do not always address the question you actually ask and often if the question is out of the realm of their own personal experience or understanding they will try to offer solace in the esoteric. Here the author seems to be answering some inquiry about education and financial wealth, gaining it, having it, or the lack there of. In the opening passage the author chides the intellectual class, those who seek knowledge for self glorification as opposed to desire for a closeness whith Christ/God, through understanding. I wonder if Rheginus was from an area that was or became predominantly Islamic. The author addresses the duality of Sophia (wisdom) and Gnosis (knowledge) in the qualification of the seeker themselves. I'm curious about where Rheginus is from because there is a cultural butting of heads between Christianity and Islam over the role and definition of knowledge, who is entitled to seek it and under what circumstances. The fact that Rheginus is being addressed in a letter implies that he is of upper cast because who else would have been capable of reading in the first place. If Rheginus were alive today I'd suggest he read The Consolation of Philosophy based soley on the opening of The Treatise.
In the second and thrird sections I am most struck by choices made by the translator and, assumedly, approved by the commenting scholar. Meyer consistantly chooses a pattern of capitalization that differs from other translations I have read. This is addressed in the book's over all introduction as a tool consciouly used by the editor, who is also the translator. Traditionally in texts on Christianity the teachings of Jesus Christ are referred to as the Word. This is in direct reference to the divinity of Christ and that Christ and God are one, the basis of Christian ideology. It is in part derived from the Book of John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
In most texts I have read "word" is capitalized: Word. Meyers has chosen to not follow this tradition. Other places where many Christian scholars choose to use capitalization are in the words: World, He, Him and His (in reference to Christ and God the Father). The author does reserve capitalization for the word: All, in reference to a description of the completeness of God, and in the word: Fullness, in reference to what is described in other translations I have read as The Pleroma, or "Completion". In fact, The Pleroma is what the author is writing about. Depending on the translator differing terms are used. Pleroma is Greek in origin and is a term taken directly from the Pistis Sophia in the teaching of Christ to the disciples post Resurrection. The author of the scripture speaks directly to a knowledge and understanding of this text in the fourth section of the Treatise, The Resurrection of the Believer. I'm left wondering what Mr. Meyer's religious background is, if any; not in judgement, only out of curiosity.
In the fifth section the author offers a warning to Rheginus against listening to those who only listen to themselves and only seek the self. In some circles this warning is perceived as a warning against the Gnostic, but a Gnostic Seeker is not necessarily soley self informed. So, it may also have been a warning against specific persons of the time. Either way, I think it is sound advise to give anyone on any topic even to present day. Scientific research and process also require the duplication of scietific results to confirm findings. The author is saying the same for discovering in the realm of the spirit and is warning Rheginus to trust only those who are informed across a breadth of experience and knowledge, not from those touting enlightenment from a position soley of self discovery, self appointed authority, or what might be described as monarch style descision making. Quite a progressive view for the time and certainly in line with the Christian perspective of Christ as the one and only true King.
The sixth and seventh sections are a consolation of the permanence of the Mind and Spirit and the temporary nature of the flesh. In particular, the seventh section: Flesh and Spirit, I am reminded of all the pop psychology out there in present day that warns against the illusion of unrealistic youth and beauty standards represented by personalities like the Kardashians or just about anyone in Hollywood for that matter. This is the section where the term "corruption" is rolled out. Corruption is implied in both fashion and politics. Perhaps Rheginus complained about not only not being rich enough and smart enough, but also not good looking enough? Poor fella.
The eighth section: What Is The Resurrection?, was interesting to me as a Christian with tattoos. So many denominations adhere to the Old Testament idea that any modification to the body is a sin against God, including tattoos. But here in this section the author cleary states that the body is all temporary and that what Christ has saved is the spirit and mind.
Surely the visible parts of the body are dead and will not be saved. Only th eliving parts that are within will arise.
Sounds pretty clear to me that the author would have found no issue with my tattoos or anyone elses.
The ninth section is a poem and it could have been written by some overwrought college student today. It is relevant, but not particulary well crafted...but that is probably more of an issue with translation than original format. It would be interesting to see how the original text was placed on the papyrus and hear the words spoken in original dialect to judge the form of the poem itself.
The tenth section made me chuckle. It's a mixture of sugar and salt to poor Rheginus. The author consoles Rheginus that he is in fact good enough to live based on his acceptance of Christ, then goes on to let Rheggie know that he is in fact being patient with him and his petulant inquiry. Man, on man, I wish I could read Rheggie's letter to the author.
The conclusion is the best part to me. It highlights the irony of the translated scriptures in this entire collection. This letter to Rheggie, in particular is of great contemporary relevance to Christians of all denominations, but most Christians will never read or hear hear about them because they are Gnostic and not necessarily Cannon. The author closes The Treatise with:
Do not be worried about sharing this treatise with anyone among you, for it can be helpful. Many are waiting what I have written to you.
I say peace and grace be with them. I greet you and those who love you with the love of family.
So, perhaps Rheggie wasn't just a convert, but also a fellow priest. Interesting. Very interesting indeed.
Well, I have a legal document to review and painting to attend to and a novella to work on, not to mention dinner to make later. Have a lovely election day. Don't forget to vote.
Commenti