Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 02-26-2013, 07:46 AM

Kate Mosse in her latest fiction book Citadel (or via: amazon.co.uk) has a monk in AD 342 near Carcasonne praying words from Revelation.

"The only Gnostic text that had not provoked Athanasius' disfavour.
"A new heaven and a new earth""

Has Mosse got her research badly twisted?

Toto · 02-26-2013, 12:12 PM

From a review:

Quote:

But Authié wants Raoul for his own purposes: Raoul is in possession of a map belonging to his former comrade, Antoine, who died under torture at the hands of Authié's henchman without revealing its whereabouts. Beneath his official guise, Authié is a kind of latter-day inquisitor, obsessed with restoring the purity of the Catholic faith; he knows that Antoine corresponded with Otto Rahn, and suspects that before Rahn's death the German passed to Antoine a map revealing the whereabouts of an ancient codex containing a secret so powerful it could change the course of the war. The Ahnenerbe are also pursuing this codex, apparently with Authié's assistance, though to their cost they fail to realise that his motivation for securing it is quite different to theirs.

As in the first two books, Mosse sets up two narrative threads progressing in parallel, though the difference here is that neither concerns the present day. Although the principal story follows Sandrine and her friends as they attempt to find the codex, while evading capture and throwing Authié and his collaborators off the scent, we also glimpse the far distant history of the region in the subplot of the codex's original journey into the mountains, in the hands of a young, fourth-century monk risking death to save the heretical text from the flames.

Though the elements of fantasy and magic require a firm suspension of disbelief (there is a whiff of Tolkien about the alleged powers of the codex), . . .

Mosse has grounded her story in exhaustive research, as testified by the bibliography, . . .

It's fiction - the sort that Pete would write if he applied himself.

I don't think anyone would classify Revelation as "gnostic", although some church authorities opposed putting it in the canon.

andrewcriddle · 02-26-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Kate Mosse in her latest fiction book Citadel (or via: amazon.co.uk) has a monk in AD 342 near Carcasonne praying words from Revelation.

"The only Gnostic text that had not provoked Athanasius' disfavour.
"A new heaven and a new earth""

Has Mosse got her research badly twisted?

If she is referring to Athanasius' Festal letter defining the NT canon (letter 39) then AD (CE) 342 is wrong. Letter 39 was written in 367 CE. I don't think that a monk (where there monks in Carcassone in 342 ?) in 342 CE would have referred to Athanasius' views about the canon.

Andrew Criddle

Chili · 02-26-2013, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Kate Mosse in her latest fiction book Citadel (or via: amazon.co.uk) has a monk in AD 342 near Carcasonne praying words from Revelation.

"The only Gnostic text that had not provoked Athanasius' disfavour.
"A new heaven and a new earth""

Has Mosse got her research badly twisted?

If she is referring to Athanasius' Festal letter defining the NT canon (letter 39) then AD (CE) 342 is wrong. Letter 39 was written in 367 CE. I don't think that a monk (where there monks in Carcassone in 342 ?) in 342 CE would have referred to Athanasius' views about the canon.

Andrew Criddle

I think it is Romantic more than anything, and is futuristic only in anticipation to arrive at the place we first started and know it as if for the first time. That so tranforms to old heaven and earth into the New heaven and earth and points at our own mind.

So it belongs, but only to arrive at Gen. 1-3 where it began for the individual.

Clivedurdle · 02-26-2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

If she is referring to Athanasius' Festal letter defining the NT canon (letter 39) then AD (CE) 342 is wrong. Letter 39 was written in 367 CE. I don't think that a monk (where there monks in Carcassone in 342 ?) in 342 CE would have referred to Athanasius' views about the canon.

I thought Athanasius was later and I was wondering about monks in 342 as well! I think the reference to well researched is about the other part of the plot - about Vichy France.

It can't be that difficult to check this stuff!

But has Revelation ever been considered a gnostic text by anyone?

Toto · 02-26-2013, 01:35 PM

The place of Revelation in the canon:

Formation of the NT Canon

Quote:

The next step was taken by the rabid anti-Arian conservative Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (cf. M 211-2). The Bishop of Alexandria was one of the most important men in the Church for one simple reason: the Festal Epistle written by that bishop to the churches in Egypt was considered the authoritative statement on the dates of Christian festivals, in deference to the presence of astronomical experts at Alexandria. It was consequently read and employed by the Syrian churches (via Antioch) and the Western churches (via Rome). In 367 A.D. Athanasius took the chance afforded him and included in his Festal Epistle of that year what he declared to be the canonical texts: the very Bible we now know (Gospels, Acts, 21 Epistles, and Revelation). "Let no one add to these," he declared, "let nothing be taken away from them." This became the Western Catholic canon, again by fiat of one man, and through deference to his authority by the rest of the Church. However, men like Gregory of Nazianzus still rejected Revelation, and other ideas of what the Bible should contain persisted here and there--either adding books (such as the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, added to the OT), or rejecting them (Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John especially).

It was not until 692 A.D. when this decision became anything official. That year the Trullan Synod was comprised of several Eastern bishops convened by Emperor Justinian to settle and organize the authorities for Christian law (just as Justinian had commanded for secular law). This decreed that, for instance, both the Synod of Laodicea and the Epistles of Athanasius were to be considered authoritative, even though they contradicted each other on whether Revelation was to be included (M 216-7). Furthering the confusion, this Synod also codified as official the so-called "Eighty-Fifth Apostolic Canon" (M 313) which was probably written in the late 4th century but attributed to Clement of Rome--this decree established the two letters of Clement as "sacred books" and part of the "venerable and holy" Bible, along with eight other books "which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them." This mysterious remark is troubling, but reflects the problem, already mentioned earlier, of secret doctrines and sayings that are lost to us yet could be older and more authoritative than anything that survives.

But I gather that the OP is questioning whether the Revelation of John is "gnostic" by any definition.

Toto · 02-26-2013, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

...
But has Revelation ever been considered a gnostic text by anyone?

Modern neo-gnostics seem to have adopted it:

Gnostic Teachings

Quote:

This free online course reveals how you can discover the true meaning of the Revelation or Apoclaypse of St. John, which is a crytic and mystical scripture at the very end of the Christian Bible.

Over the centuries, hundreds of books have been written in an effort to explain the elusive symbolism of this mysterious text, but none have succeeded. As a document written by initiates of the secret doctrine and for initiates of the secret doctrine, Revelation is an esoteric treatise of Kabbalah and Alchemy, and can only be understood in light of those ancient sciences and in combination with meditation. Now the doors have been opened so that humanity can see for themselves what is hidden in this beautiful scripture.

I don't think this would pass peer review.

DCHindley · 02-26-2013, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Kate Mosse in her latest fiction book Citadel (or via: amazon.co.uk) has a monk in AD 342 near Carcasonne praying words from Revelation.

"The only Gnostic text that had not provoked Athanasius' disfavour.
"A new heaven and a new earth""

Has Mosse got her research badly twisted?

Clive,

It used to be common to assume that the author of the Gospel of John was one of the apostles of Jesus, and that he also was the author of the Apocalypse of John. While this equation is no longer the case among bible critics of all stripes, it still holds true among those who cling to romantic notions like Mark being the interpreter of Peter, etc. Since the Gospel of John has many features that sound gnostic-like, folks who hold to the idea of the author of both Gospel and Apocalypse being the same might think the apocalyptic language of the Apocalypse is also Gnostic.

This is like the TV shows that depict "Amish" (not even close to real Amish or Mennonites) speaking gawd awful imitations of King James English. Amish and Mennonites speak a dialect of High German called Pennsylvania Deutsch, and use Luther's Middle High German translation of the Bible. Perhaps because the screenwriters assumed these stereotypes were "common knowledge."

The TV show "Amish Mafia" depict men with scruffy beards with mustaches, and carry shotguns which they use to intimidate others. Amish have full beards but shave off any hair on their upper lips to distinguish them from the mercenary soldiers of old who were notorious for their bushy mustaches. The reason for this is they were pacifists. They could at least get the damn straw hats right.

DCH

Chili · 02-27-2013, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It used to be common to assume that the author of the Gospel of John was one of the apostles of Jesus, and that he also was the author of the Apocalypse of John. While this equation is no longer the case among bible critics of all stripes, it still holds true among those who cling to romantic notions like Mark being the interpreter of Peter, etc. Since the Gospel of John has many features that sound gnostic-like, folks who hold to the idea of the author of both Gospel and Apocalypse being the same might think the apocalyptic language of the Apocalypse is also Gnostic.

This is like the TV shows that depict "Amish" (not even close to real Amish or Mennonites) speaking gawd awful imitations of King James English. Amish and Mennonites speak a dialect of High German called Pennsylvania Deutsch, and use Luther's Middle High German translation of the Bible. Perhaps because the screenwriters assumed these stereotypes were "common knowledge."

The TV show "Amish Mafia" depict men with scruffy beards with mustaches, and carry shotguns which they use to intimidate others. Amish have full beards but shave off any hair on their upper lips to distinguish them from the mercenary soldiers of old who were notorious for their bushy mustaches. The reason for this is they were pacifists. They could at least get the damn straw hats right.

DCH

Or like 'the wave' among PhD's as spectators themselves.

02-26-2013, 07:46 AM	#1
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is Revelation Gnostic? Kate Mosse in her latest fiction book Citadel (or via: amazon.co.uk) has a monk in AD 342 near Carcasonne praying words from Revelation. "The only Gnostic text that had not provoked Athanasius' disfavour. "A new heaven and a new earth"" Has Mosse got her research badly twisted?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.