Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-14-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Anyway, best wishes

Well, thanks, Pete. Notwithstanding my opinion of your theories, you do occasionally come up with stuff that makes me think.

Well, you're welcome Doug. That's all anyone can ask in the end. I see my self as a messenger with a message which says simply to follow the evidence wheresoever it may lead us. Although this may appear difficult to understand for some people, I dont have any agenda other than this. I have done my best to follow the guidelines and principles in the field of ancient history as outlined by people such as Arnaldo Momigliano. In the end we need to deal with IMO the evidence, and the evidence alone.

My claim here is that the Nag Hammadi codices are not, as described by all the other "christianising commentators", evidence of any form of christianity ever before known. The bundle of books contains a number of extremely puzzling tractates, and some of these are certainly non-christian. The NHC are described as gnostic but I have not yet seen anyone ask the question whether the gnostics were simply custodial priest in widespread Hellenic temple tradition which was utterly destroyed in the same century the NHC was buried in the ground (in Coptic). Arius of Alexandria had to go underground (in Syria).

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 09-15-2008, 09:17 PM

I am reposting Jeffrey's latest reference to discussions by academics (of various fields?) concerning the subject matter contained in the NHC and what this may represent in the broader political reality of the fourth century.

Thanks again for this reference.

[QUOTE=mountainman;5542447]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

FWIW, what's above is 100 years old and severely out of date since it was published before the discovery of the DSS and the NH library. In the light of the work of R.M. Grant (Gnosticism and Early Christianity), Edwin M. Yamauchi (or via: amazon.co.uk) and others, as well as of the DSS and the NH documents, among other things, no contemporary expert in Gnosticism agrees with this claim.

For a review of the shift in perspective, see B. A. Pearson's Ancient Gnosticism (or via: amazon.co.uk) and especially C.B. Smith's No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk).

But knowing that since these things are not on the internet, and that you do all most all of your "research" by trolling the net, look at "Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate".

Jeffrey

Here is the concluding paragraph ...

Quote:

Conclusions

At the 1966 Messina conference on Gnostic origins Simone Petrément was almost the sole representative of the classical position which held that Gnosticism was none other than a Christian heresy.120 In the last two decades the existence of a non-Christian Gnosticism has been amply demonstrated, but the existence of a pre-Christian Gnosticism in the first century or before, that is, a fully developed Gnostic system early enough to have influenced the New Testament writers, remains in doubt.

Gnosticism with a fully articulated theology, cosmology, anthropology, and soteriology cannot be discerned clearly until into the Christian era. According to Wilson, were we to adopt the programmatic definition of H. Jonas121 'then we must probably wait for the second century'.122 Hengel would concur, 'Gnosticism is first visible as a spiritual movement at the end of the first century AD at the earliest and only develops fully in the second century.123

At the Yale conference Barbara Aland emphasized the importance of Christianity for the understanding of Valentinianism. She would date the rise of Gnosticism in the first quarter of the second century.124 Tröger would also underscore the role of Christianity for the development of at least certain branches of Gnosticism.125

Significantly, U. Bianchi, the editor of the conference volume from the Messina conference on the origins of Gnosticism,126 has also come to the conclusion that Christianity is indispensable for understanding the full development of Gnosticism

This is an interesting conclusion reached by these minds:

Christianity is indispensable for understanding the full development of Gnosticism.

I wonder if the opposite conclusion has been contemplated. Namely the conclusion that Gnosticism is indispensable for understanding the full development of Christianity.

The C14 evidence available is non canonic and is fourth century. The article cited describes multiple insurgences by theorists of chronology in placing more import on far later centuries, particularly with reference to another non canonical text, one quite gnostic (ideed having other texts such as The Hymn of the Pearl buried within it).

Who was Lithargoel in TAOPATTA? Is this gnostic?
Why were the ancients "enduring habitation" in the
midst of the sea hedged in by high walls and waves?
Why is Lithargoel depicted as a healer in the tradition
of Asclepius? Why do we have the tractates of Hermes
and Asclepius in the same codex as Lithargoel and the
Peter and the Twelve (Hello can they count to 12?)
apostles who are consistently presented by the author
of NHC 6.1 as inept, non-ascetic, untrained, unskilled,
undisciplined, memory-impaired, etc, etc. The prostrating
apostles. A satire.

The authority of the canon was being satired by clever gnostics
at the same time the canon was lavishly published.
What is simpler?

The chronology of the new testament corpus
(that is both, and the canon and the apochrypha)
and indeed the corpus of Jesus HJ Christ is by C14
from the ground of the 4th century. IMO, unless
shown otherwise, the chronology presented by
Eusebius and his following christians, such as
the minds above, eusebian christian minds, is conjectural.

In the words of Lightfoot, Eusebius is their sole
guiding (ahem) "light". Chronologically.

Best wishes,

Pete

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.