pinkvoy

did you like it? Bart Ehrman called it a real treasure in his Lost Scriptures.

What are your thoughts? are there any other 1-2 century early christian text you like?

except

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

The gospel of truth is joy to those who have received from the Father of truth the gift of knowing him by the power of the Logos, who has come from the Pleroma and who is in the thought and the mind of the Father; he it is who is called "the Savior," since that is the name of the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father. For the name of the gospel is the manifestation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the All sought him from whom it had come forth. You see, the All had been inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought.

This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable, inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful.

For this reason, do not take error too seriously. Thus, since it had no root, it was in a fog as regards the Father, engaged in preparing works and forgetfulnesses and fears in order, by these means, to beguile those of the middle and to make them captive. The forgetfulness of error was not revealed. It did not become light beside the Father. Forgetfulness did not exist with the Father, although it existed because of him. What exists in him is knowledge, which was revealed so that forgetfulness might be destroyed and that they might know the Father, Since forgetfulness existed because they did not know the Father, if they then come to know the Father, from that moment on forgetfulness will cease to exist.

That is the gospel of him whom they seek, which he has revealed to the perfect through the mercies of the Father as the hidden mystery, Jesus the Christ. Through him he enlightened those who were in darkness because of forgetfulness. He enlightened them and gave them a path. And that path is the truth which he taught them. For this reason error was angry with him, so it persecuted him. It was distressed by him, so it made him powerless. He was nailed to a cross. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery.

And as for him, them he found in himself, and him they found in themselves, that illimitable, inconceivable one, that perfect Father who made the all, in whom the All is, and whom the All lacks, since he retained in himself their perfection, which he had not given to the all. The Father was not jealous. What jealousy, indeed, is there between him and his members? For, even if the Aeon had received their perfection, they would not have been able to approach the perfection of the Father, because he retained their perfection in himself, giving it to them as a way to return to him and as a knowledge unique in perfection. He is the one who set the All in order and in whom the All existed and whom the All lacked. As one of whom some have no knowledge, he desires that they know him and that they love him. For what is it that the All lacked, if not the knowledge of the Father?

mountainman

Yes. It is out of the Nag Hammadi Codices which were manufactured in the mid 4th century.

That's nice.

I dont think its a 1st or 2nd century text. I think that the Biblical Scholars are stampeding to try and conjecture that the 4th century published texts were not in fact 4th century originals, because as we know all scribes did in the antiquity of the mid 4th century, while the "highways were covered with galloping bishops", was to sit around on their hands and copy centuries old anonymous texts. There was nothing really new to say or write about the concepts of divinity in the Roman empire a generation after the Council of Nicaea.

I would be extremely grateful if anyone can answer any of the following questions....

Q1: Does anyone know approximately how many of the 50 odd texts of the 4th century NHC's are now roundly conjectured by one academic and scholar after another, using the faithful Eusebius and his "research" as a guide, as being merely copies of centuries old anonymous texts?

Q2: Does anyone know of any text of these 50 odd (less with duplicates) in the Nag Hammadi Codices which contemporary academics and scholars agree was authored during the 4th century when the books were physically manufactured, and not in the 1st or 2nd (or even 3rd century)?

Q3: Does anyone in this forum appreciate the scale of the sheer improbability in this trend by modern scholarship,

Q4: Do more than a few people here think that it is somewhat illogical to expect these 4th century hand-manufactured codices, each bound with leather covers and bindings, to contain authorship from the same epoch (i.e. century) as their manufacture?

Toto

Pete - give it a rest. No one agrees with you that the date of a Coptic translation of a document has to be the date of the composition of the document.

Yes, it is illogical to "expect these 4th century hand-manufactured codices, each bound with leather covers and bindings, to contain authorship from the same epoch (i.e. century) as their manufacture."

stephan huller

It never ceases to amaze me. The feigned certainty. The determination to promote stupid opinions. I'd like to see the day he realizes how big of a waste of time all of this was.

Toto

Getting back to Valentinus, I find the theology rather difficult.

April DeConick has an interesting comment hereDeConick has another post here worth reading:

stephan huller

The most interesting parts of the Gospel of Truth - for me at least - is when obvious points of contact with Irenaeus emerge. The one being added to the ninety nine sheep as transference to the right hand is very interesting. The counting method where ninety nine is 'left' and one hundred 'right' is referenced. But here is something else. The three letter root of the word 'right' - yamin = 100 = y (= 10) + m (= 40) + n (= 50). In short the origins of the gospel are developed from an Aramaic source.

I am not even sure that the text is Valentinian per se. While the testimony matches what appears in Irenaeus it is filed under 'the Marcosians.' The fact that Irenaeus reports the 'Gospel of Truth' in association with the Valentinians isn't proof that it originated within a circle associated with a certain 'Valentinus.' Irenaeus is an unreliable witness in many respects in spite of occassional 'hits' with reality.

stephan huller

Another parallel in the Torah - Deut 32.2 'mimino' which contains the word yamin within it. The change of pronunciation has no significance.

The word mimino מימינו in Det 32.2 means “on his right”. It is a simple statement of being saved by the right arm ימין of God or the arm זרוע of God means being saved by something that feels like direct intervention. The angels are to God’s right, meaning they are the agents of his will.

mountainman

But I am NOT arguing that the date of the physical publication has to be close to the date of authorship. All I am arguing is that it is more likely that the date of the physical publication is close to the date of authorship, rather than the current trend and argument that the 50 odd texts contained in the 4th century Nag Hammadi codices have to be scribal copies of original and anonymous texts authored centuries before.


What's your logic then, if it is not an indirect appeal to the authority of the heresiologists in this matter of the chronology of the authorship of the gnostic texts contained within the NHC? De Connick and all others have found the name "Valentinius" and "Basilides" in the "Church History" of Eusebius, and on Eusebius's testiment alone, they are championing the identification of the authorship of these heretical gnostic texts in accordance to a Eusebian and heresiological chronology, two centuries before the date of the physical codices binding these texts.

* Nowhere does an author's name appear in the text of NHC 1.3 - "Valentinus" is not mentioned.
* Does Ireneus cite a passage or text from "The Gospel of Truth"?
* How can we be sure that there were not two (or more) "Gospels of Truth" (it looks like a popular name).
* It is a reasonable statement that the orthodox heresiologists "twisted" the histories of their heretical opponents.
* The conjecture that history happened as Eusebius asserts in the records of Irenaeus is not necessarily true.
* It is thus nowhere close to an undisputed fact that NHC 3.1 was first authored centuries before it was physically published.

The certainty obviously has always rested with the orthodox assertions.
I am disputing that these orthodox assertions and conjectures are factual.
I have provided the grounds for my dispute with their findings.

Different opinions should not be unwelcomed.

Toto

Valentinus_(Gnostic)

In one of the above links, DeConick gives reasons for connecting the Gospel of Truth to the Valentinians, and to Valentinian himself.

stephan huller

Since Pete feels free to develop his own threads within topics I thought I would continue to inquire whether y-m-n (= 100) can exist as a real word. You see there really is no such word as YOD-MEM-NUN. If you look up Jastrow's Jewish Aramaic Dictionary for instance, you will find that there is an entry but we should disregard what Jastrow says about the root YOD-MEM-NUN.

It would be better to say take notice of what he says the way he meant it. Jastrow’s root entries are not always real words. They are the root, which can’t stand in isolation. Even when he gives what looks like the past tense of the Qal, it is often just an abstraction. Quite often the meaning assigned to the root is NOT ANY ATTESTED MEANING, only a reasonable assumption about the history of the meaning before its use in written records.

So his root YOD-MEM-NUN certainly exists, but what looks like an actual form, the first word of the second column of p. 580, with the vowels of the past tense Qal, IS NOT A REAL VERB. What is really used is the pi’el, cited straight after this. Look at the examples. You will see that even of the pi’el, only THE PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (i.e. the pu’al participle) is actually used, and even that bears a meaning NOT THE SAME AS JASTROW’S ASSUMED ORIGINAL MEANING.

The meaning “skilful” is dubious. The meaning “the one actually meant if some other is not actually specified” or “the one naturally thought of, because the most eminent holder of the title” fits every cited instance. If the verb is to mean “to go to the right” it must be in the hif’il. That means past tense hemin, future tense yemin, participle memin (MEM-YOD-MEM-YOD-NUN). The corresponding Aramaic word must be in the Af’el. [[There is an alternative set of forms in Biblical Hebrew, but still in the hif’il, from a variant derived root ALEF-MEM-NUN, but this is not the same as the root ALEF-MEM-NUN In the Qal stative participle amen means certain (but said of a concept, not a person, and used as a single word meaning “it is certain”).

The nif’al participle ne’eman means faithful (said of a person). This word is applied to Moses in Numbers 12. The hif’il means to believe. None of these are connected with the Biblical Hebrew hif’il forms meaning to go to the right. It is true that the forms are the same: past tense he’emin (HE-ALEF-MEM-YOD-NUN), future tense ya’amin (YOD-ALEF-MEM-YOD-NUN), participle ma’amin (MEM-ALEF-MEM-YOD-MEM).]].

So I come back to the point that there is no past tense yaman with three letters in any meaning at all, and no participle yamen with three letters in any meaning at all. To find the intended word with the numerical value of a hundred you will have to think about the theory a bit more and look for an important technical or symbolic term. Can it really be thought that the term would have been hidden so inadequately as to be guessed in a few minutes? No, only deep knowledge of the SYSTEM OF THOUGHT will give the answer. The answer will turn out to be impossible to guess if you don’t think in terms of the symbolic structure, and easy to see if you do think in that way.

The country of Yemen comes from the word 'right' in Arabic and interestingly it is claimed that Syria (al-Sham) comes from the word 'left' - relative to Mecca.