Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magdlyn · 06-01-2004, 03:12 AM

Dado asked in the "Paul" thread, were there contradictions or similar themes in non-canonical texts. He can correct me if that is quite accurate.

He seems to be implying, if 2 texts tell of a similar story, but contradcit on details, (as in Jesus' geneologies in Matt and Luke), theses scenes should be discounted.

IMHO, the gnostic texts do not rely on a literal interpretation. In fact, many are so fanciful, this would be impossible.

I submit, for your consideration, a page on gnosticism's themes in general, and 2 Nag Hammadi texts, whose theme is the creation.

http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html

DinoStoned · 06-01-2004, 03:21 AM

I'd always thought gnostic texts were mostly allegorical...

Magdlyn · 06-01-2004, 03:28 AM

Sorry, a slip of the finger caused me to post before I had actually said anything. That'll teach me to try and be intelligible pre-coffee! Post now edited.

To continue, from the above article:

Quote:

THE GNOSTIC MESSAGE

Gnosticism in general and the Nag Hammadi texts in particular present a spectrum of beliefs, although a central philosophical core is roughly discernible, which Gnosticism scholar Kurt Rudolph calls "the central myth." Gnosticism teaches that something is desperately wrong with the universe and then delineates the means to explain and rectify the situation.

Magdlyn · 06-01-2004, 06:34 AM

Correction: dado's original question was in the "Existence of Christ" thread.

Magdlyn · 06-02-2004, 04:50 AM

No responses.

So I guess the answer is (pick all that apply):

1) Gnostic texts do not contradict each other

2) Gnostic texts contradict but it doesn't matter as they are all allegorical

3) I didn't read the links, b/c I just don't care!

4) I tried to read the links but they were too confusing

5) I only bother with the canon, that's confusing enough

6) Orthodoxy won, why should I bother with gnosticism?

7) Other

dado · 06-02-2004, 05:32 AM

that's not really were i was going. i'm most interested in knowing what set of 2 or 3 or 4 gospels - canonical or not - produces the least inconsistent story.

Magdlyn · 06-02-2004, 05:55 AM

And why are you wondering this?

Just to establish positive historical "proof" that there is a HJ core?

The canon (4 gospel narratives) has been cobbled together from so many different sources and POVs that you will not find much consistency between them, except when the synoptics actually plagiarize each other.

I think the details of any 2 gospels (canon or non) will never hook up. They were written for the needs of different communities. The final choice was made for political expediancy.

The only consistency will be with themes, not narrative details.

There is some consistency in the true Paulines, as they seem to come from the same pen. But they were written over several decades, so scholars have pointed out, even Paul's POV changed some as he matured.

Magdlyn · 06-02-2004, 07:12 AM

Had to hunt on Google, but finally found part 2 to the first link above.

The Gnostic Gospels: Part II: Are They Authentic?

http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet.../gnosis02.html

Quote:

Unless we are content to chronicle a cacophony of conflicting views of Jesus based on pure speculation or passionate whimsy, historical investigation is non-negotiable. Christianity has always been a historical religion and any serious challenge to its legitimacy must attend to that fact. Its central claims are rooted in events, not just ideas; in people, not just principles; in revelation, not speculation; in incarnation, not abstraction. Renowned historian Herbert Butterfield speaks of Christianity as a religion in which "certain historical events are held to be part of the religion itself" and are "considered to...represent the divine breaking into history."

Reading further, I find the author asserting:

Quote:

There is solid evidence that the New Testament Gospels were written by their namesakes: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

!!!

Quote:

Although Pagels and others have provoked sympathy, if not enthusiasm, for the Gnostics as the underdogs who just happened to lose out to orthodoxy, the Gnostics' historical credentials concerning Jesus are less than compelling. It may be romantic to "root for the underdog," but the Gnostic underdogs show every sign of being heretical hangers-on who tried to harness Christian language for conceptions antithetical to early Christian teaching.

This would define "early" as the 4 semi/pseudo-historical gospel narratives, not the earlier Paul!

Oh well...Groothius seems to assume the canonical gospel narratives are agreed to be historically watertight. You might just want to skip this article.

dado · 06-02-2004, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

And why are you wondering this?

Just to establish positive historical "proof" that there is a HJ core?

lol. i think you know me better than that!

i just think it would raise some questions about the canonicty of things if it turned out the most consistent gospels were not in the standard canon. it would be a way to lever the door open a little and give more people a reason to read the texts.

Magdlyn · 06-02-2004, 02:56 PM

OK, so did you find consistency in the two creation texts I linked?

I can rec 2 crucifixion and/or resurrections texts as well, if you like.

Or two teaching texts.

06-01-2004, 03:12 AM	#1
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Contradictions in Gnostic texts Dado asked in the "Paul" thread, were there contradictions or similar themes in non-canonical texts. He can correct me if that is quite accurate. He seems to be implying, if 2 texts tell of a similar story, but contradcit on details, (as in Jesus' geneologies in Matt and Luke), theses scenes should be discounted. IMHO, the gnostic texts do not rely on a literal interpretation. In fact, many are so fanciful, this would be impossible. I submit, for your consideration, a page on gnosticism's themes in general, and 2 Nag Hammadi texts, whose theme is the creation. http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html

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

06-01-2004, 03:21 AM	#2
DinoStoned Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Malaysia Posts: 599	I'd always thought gnostic texts were mostly allegorical...

06-01-2004, 06:34 AM	#4
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Correction: dado's original question was in the "Existence of Christ" thread.

06-02-2004, 04:50 AM	#5
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	No responses. So I guess the answer is (pick all that apply): 1) Gnostic texts do not contradict each other 2) Gnostic texts contradict but it doesn't matter as they are all allegorical 3) I didn't read the links, b/c I just don't care! 4) I tried to read the links but they were too confusing 5) I only bother with the canon, that's confusing enough 6) Orthodoxy won, why should I bother with gnosticism? 7) Other

06-02-2004, 05:32 AM	#6
dado Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 839	that's not really were i was going. i'm most interested in knowing what set of 2 or 3 or 4 gospels - canonical or not - produces the least inconsistent story.

06-02-2004, 05:55 AM	#7
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	And why are you wondering this? Just to establish positive historical "proof" that there is a HJ core? The canon (4 gospel narratives) has been cobbled together from so many different sources and POVs that you will not find much consistency between them, except when the synoptics actually plagiarize each other. I think the details of any 2 gospels (canon or non) will never hook up. They were written for the needs of different communities. The final choice was made for political expediancy. The only consistency will be with themes, not narrative details. There is some consistency in the true Paulines, as they seem to come from the same pen. But they were written over several decades, so scholars have pointed out, even Paul's POV changed some as he matured.

06-02-2004, 02:56 PM	#10
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	OK, so did you find consistency in the two creation texts I linked? I can rec 2 crucifixion and/or resurrections texts as well, if you like. Or two teaching texts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.