Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-23-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Ultimately, Gnosticism seems to be like indecency--one knows it when one sees it. More aptly, as suggested by Karen L. King in What is Gnosticism it might be suggested that it never existed, except as a term roughly equivalent to "the other guys," hence the difficulty we seem to have in extracting some sort of homogenous religion from a wealth of different texts. In the case of Thomas, it almost seems to be an ad hoc to support a given dating. Those who claim it Gnostic almost uniformly date it late, while those who don't date it early.

Now this I agree with. Those who categorize it as Gnostic are not defining that term as broadly as you would argue it should be, and they are calling it Gnostic specifically because they would like to exclude early authorship.

Quote:

I see this (or statements like it) bandied about a lot, but have never understood them. Where in Thomas would you expect to find a mention of miracles, the crucifixion, or the resurrection? Bear in mind how the gospel is introduced, in particular--it gives no pretext that it is going to give you any information about anything of the sort.

I think I would answer this by saying that I would not expect to see a pure sayings gospel at all at once the narrative gospels were known or after Jesus was deified. Once Jesus is God, the sayings become secondary. If the compilers of a sayings tradition were aware of the narratives, I would expect to see, at least in the prologue, some sort of reference to Jesus as "Lord," "Messiah/Christ," or even "Son of Man." GThom does not identify Jesus as an object of worship, as any sort of divine figure. The sayings themselves contain no Messianic or divine pretensions. They also don't mention the destruction of the Temple. I see all these things (as well as the sapiential rather than apocalyptic nature of the sayings) as indicating an early date and an authorship independent of the synoptics.

Vorkosigan · 12-23-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Ultimately, Gnosticism seems to be like indecency--one knows it when one sees it.

An excellent point, Rick.

Quote:

In the case of Thomas, it almost seems to be an ad hoc to support a given dating. Those who claim it Gnostic almost uniformly date it late, while those who don't date it early.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and I date it late.

Michael

premjan · 12-23-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

I can't see it. By all accounts he ate quite modestly, and there's no mention of a crane during the crucifiction.
Boro Nut

Whereas Buddha is supposed to have died from food poisoning.

manimal2878 · 12-24-2005, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

Whereas Buddha is supposed to have died from food poisoning.

I meant more how jesus is a wisdom teacher and does not claim himself to be divine, but just a teacher of a path.

premjan · 12-24-2005, 02:41 AM

But isn't Jesus wont to say he is the son of God?

Boro Nut · 12-24-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

Whereas Buddha is supposed to have died from food poisoning.

Not strictly true. His meal may have precipitated his death, but the autopsy report concludes the real problem was he only had one arse.

Boro Nut

Julian · 12-24-2005, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think I would answer this by saying that I would not expect to see a pure sayings gospel at all at once the narrative gospels were known or after Jesus was deified.

This, I think, is an important point. The appearance of the gospels would eliminate the need for a sayings source. After the gospels, a source like Q would look like nothing more than notes taken from the gospels, much like some bibles today color the sayings of Jesus in red, and would obviate any need for their subsequent copying.

To extrapolate on that thought, it could be argued that there would be no need at all for producing a sayings sources after the gospels. The gnostics of Egypt seemed to have been quite happy with GJohn which shows that they could find what they needed in the existing gospels. I see no reason for anyone to produce a sayings gospel which would have no real impact next to a 'real' gospel which served their needs just fine.

The very nature of it being a sayings gospel (Thomas and Q) would consign them to a time preceeding the 'proper' gospels. Writings tend to get more complicated with time and a sayings gospel is the simplest of all.

Julian

premjan · 12-24-2005, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

Not strictly true. His meal may have precipitated his death, but the autopsy report concludes the real problem was he only had one arse.
Boro Nut

So...half-arsed..as opposed to a holy ghost?

rlogan · 12-25-2005, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think I would answer this by saying that I would not expect to see a pure sayings gospel at all at once the narrative gospels were known or after Jesus was deified. Once Jesus is God, the sayings become secondary. If the compilers of a sayings tradition were aware of the narratives, I would expect to see, at least in the prologue, some sort of reference to Jesus as "Lord," "Messiah/Christ," or even "Son of Man." GThom does not identify Jesus as an object of worship, as any sort of divine figure. The sayings themselves contain no Messianic or divine pretensions. They also don't mention the destruction of the Temple. I see all these things (as well as the sapiential rather than apocalyptic nature of the sayings) as indicating an early date and an authorship independent of the synoptics.

hmm. I've wondered about this.

seems to me a "sayings" book is convenient - like proverbs. I'm very hesitant to say it would be superceded by gospels.

I'm thinking the business of "kingdom of God is at hand" and complete lack of reference to any church heirarchy or even acknowledgement of church as an institution would render it highly subversive by the third century at least.

I realize you take this as an early dating, and it seems a decent argument.

But supression seems likely to me, regardless of where we date it.

Clivedurdle · 12-25-2005, 01:59 AM

It is a while since I read Gnostic Gospels by Pagels and I am probably influenced by Freke and Gandy's second book, Jesus and the Goddess, and Ellegard, but I have always put gnostic as early - pre Gospels and probably BCE, with a direct link to wisdom literature. Psychologically, humans have always loved these altered states of consciousness that gnosticism is attempting to express. The Jewish priests continually having plenty of food from the sacrifices and annointing each other with cannabis would result in this gnostic stuff. Similar stuff is found in sufism, as some one noted, mormonism, and pentecostals.

I see Didache and Gospel of Thomas, with probably Hebrews and Revelation as earliest.

There seems to be a reluctance to directly link gnosticism and MJ. Why? I see them as the same and as the necessary evolutionary step before HJism!

HJism, with formal religious structures modelled on empire structures, is an attempt by the rational parts of ourselves to control and direct what Jung and Freud called unconscious forces - not sure what we label them now - do we pretend they don't exist?

Remember Jung did a huge amount of work around the Nag Hammadi writings.

Quote:

The Gnostic World View:
A Brief Summary of Gnosticism

GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term “myth�? should not here be taken to mean “stories that are not true�?, but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.

In the following summary, we will attempt to encapsulate in prose what the Gnostic myths express in their distinctively poetic and imaginative language.

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

Do a google search on Jung and Nag Hammadi for further links.

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

12-24-2005, 02:41 AM	#25
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	But isn't Jesus wont to say he is the son of God?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.