Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-14-2008, 06:36 PM

Lions, bulls and the pearl of great price (NHC 6.1) 348 CE

Quote:

He said to the man who sells this pearl,
"I want to know your name and the hardships
of the way to your city because we are
strangers and servants of God.

He answered and said, "If you seek my name,
Lithargoel is my name, the interpretation of
which is, the light, gazelle-like stone.

"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."

Split from this thread

mountainman · 07-14-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

Mountain man: Interesting post. I agree there are some intresting symbols that would require a large amount of time to digest. What is missing is: context, literary genra, author, time frame, intended audience, distribution, purpose, cross referenced use and literary integrity. Literary criticism is a little bit more complicated that posting a document that mentions a bull, a wolf, men, robbers, roads, pearls, water, bread, lions, dogs. Without a context this is nearly worthless, interesting, but we need these other things to even begin to know what this document is.

Is it a poem? It is a parable? Is it part of a larger teaching?

It is a Coptic tract which surfaced at Nag Hammadi in the middle of last century and eventually translated as part of the Nag Hammadi Library

The tract 6.1 (Book 6, Story 1) is entitled:

The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles.
It contains this story in context.

Here is the full story at THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY

Best wishes,

Pete

stonewall1012 · 07-14-2008, 06:57 PM

Thanks Pete for posting this.. I wish i had time to digest it... perhaps I will when I get off my latest project...

My last question still stands... Do you agre with the 348 dating? If you do- do you see it as originating from the 1st century?

Do you see this story as causing the Chronos connection or reflecting it, or using it or merely resembling it?

mountainman · 07-14-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

My last question still stands... Do you agre with the 348 dating?

YES.

Quote:

If you do- do you see it as originating from the 1st century?

NO. That is conjecture. We have a C14 date in the fourth century to deal with, not another conjectural date any earlier than the fourth century. Stay with the evidence.

Best wishes,

Pete

stonewall1012 · 07-15-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

My last question still stands... Do you agre with the 348 dating?

YES.

Quote:

If you do- do you see it as originating from the 1st century?

NO. That is conjecture. We have a C14 date in the fourth century to deal with, not another conjectural date any earlier than the fourth century. Stay with the evidence.

Best wishes,

Pete

Uhh do you mean I should stay with the evidence or do you mean as a matter of principle that we in general should stay with the evidence? To me this post seems like your assuming that I am straying from the evidence, I actually only asked a question. I asked if you saw this as having it's origins pre 348? It was a question not an assumption.

mountainman · 07-15-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

NO. That is conjecture. We have a C14 date in the fourth century to deal with, not another conjectural date any earlier than the fourth century. Stay with the evidence.

Uhh do you mean I should stay with the evidence or do you mean as a matter of principle that we in general should stay with the evidence? To me this post seems like your assuming that I am straying from the evidence, I actually only asked a question. I asked if you saw this as having it's origins pre 348? It was a question not an assumption.

All I was trying to say is that (in general) we (all of us) should try and stay with the assessment of the evidence. Chronology of the NT literature is totally unknown. We have some scholars saying early first and others late second and with more than a century of discrepancy.

My own personal view of the origin of he text of this "TAOPATTA" is that I think this tract had its origins c.325 CE with an author who was perhaps Arius of Alexandria.

Does this answer your question(s)?

Best wishes,

Pete

stonewall1012 · 07-16-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Chronology of the NT literature is totally unknown. We have some scholars saying early first and others late second and with more than a century of discrepancy.

Totally unknown.... Thats a pretty strong assertion... I need clairification. What do you mean by totally unknown? What is your condition for when something is "fully known" verse "reasonably known"?

mountainman · 07-16-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Chronology of the NT literature is totally unknown. We have some scholars saying early first and others late second and with more than a century of discrepancy.

Totally unknown.... Thats a pretty strong assertion... I need clairification. What do you mean by totally unknown?

We have a range of conjecture extending from the very conjectural first century into the second and third and fourth with some people (Hardoin et al) going way further.

Think of a game of darts. In which century did christianity have its historical origins? There is much dispute and zero evidence until the fourth.

Quote:

What is your condition for when something is "fully known" verse "reasonably known"?

Independent attestation of archaeological evidence, some C14 dating, some inscriptions, etc.

Best wishes,

Pete

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

07-14-2008, 06:57 PM	#3
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	Thanks Pete for posting this.. I wish i had time to digest it... perhaps I will when I get off my latest project... My last question still stands... Do you agre with the 348 dating? If you do- do you see it as originating from the 1st century? Do you see this story as causing the Chronos connection or reflecting it, or using it or merely resembling it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.