Talk:Gnostic Gospels

Greek Gnosticism

"It is now generally believed that Gnosticism was a Jewish movement which emerged directly in reaction to Christianity." I appreciate that this is referenced but quite frankly its preposterous! Gnosticism, Hermetism and Mithraism are three Hellenistic religions, in their own right. Calling Gnosticism Jewish is like calling Hermetism Egyptian Paganism, its patently rediculous! The facts are that Gnosticism was a Gentile movement in reaction to the Ebionites and Judaizers. I'll find a quote and correct the misleading interpolation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you find one? Bozo33 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Validity

I would like to start a discussion on the valididty of the Bible and the Gnostic Gospels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.242.130 (talk • contribs) 21:51, April 9, 2007

I think the person who wrote this article may have a touch of Bible bias: they have not backed up any or their arguments making it seem an extremely biased article ( Tom April 11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk • contribs) 14:40, April 11, 2007)

If you see any statements that you wish to challenge, please add {{fact}} at the end of the sentence or section, to request a citation. If a citation is not provided in a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks), the statement can be removed. Or, if you have citable information which refutes a statement in an article, please add it, quote your source, and remove the other info. And if you have any questions, let us know! --Elonka 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where's the cleanup tag?

This is listed on WP:CLEAN, but has no cleanup tag. Is there a good reason? Thinboy00 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now adding an NPOV tag to the article for reasons mentioned all over this talk page. If consensus is reached to remove it or I am mistaken about putting it there, remove the article from WP:CLEANThinboy00 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and style issue

The article is poorly written, and has punctuation errors. Furthermore, it does not present a neutral viewpoint, as in "The Gnostic Gospels, may have some truth, but are not considered to be the word of God", which is ambiguous. It does not specify by whom they are not considered the word of God. Lacking neutrality more evidently is the statement "The Gnostic Gospels are not included in the Bible because they are not valid as the Word of God". Here it is assumed that that the word (Word in the text) of God is documented. The full sentence seems also to imply, for complementarity, that the Gospels that are included in the Bible are the word of God. Overall the neutral viewpoint would be reinstated if the "who" is specified. Who considers them not to be valid as the word of God?--209.150.240.231 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some zealot here trying to censor any attempt to provide a balanced overview of the topic. This section really needs a lot more information which I'm willing to collaborate on. [User:MrHaney|MrHaney]] 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For best results, please try to focus talkpage comments on the article, and not on the editors who may be working on it. See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Elonka 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well when a certain editor censors every attempt at presenting both sides of the controversy one has to wonder. MrHaney 01:24, 20 April 2007

POV issues

There seems to be an effort to repeatedly insert this paragraph:

Princeton religion scholar Elaine Pagels[1], author of several books on early Christianity and the Gnostic Gospels, is considered a leading authority on the subject. Her Op-ed piece The Truth at the Heart of 'The Da Vinci Code'[2] provides an overview of her research into The Gospel of Thomas and why it may have been rejected as part of the Canon by church authorities.

In my opinion, this is a bit too "POV" for the article. There's no need to be promoting the particular Op-Ed piece by Pagels. Simply make a statement in the article, and quote Pagels' piece as a source (which has already been done in the article). In order to have a statement like, "Pagels is a leading authority," there needs to be an outside third-party reference which affirms that kind of claim. As such, I recommend that the entire paragraph be removed. --Elonka 01:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Op-ed piece is a good fast intro for people who aren't ready to purchase a book yet. My only motivation in citing Pagels is because she is the leading scholar in this field. No one will deny this. I'm sorry if you haven't heard of Pagels. Look her up on Amazon and wiki. She has written about 6 books on the subject.

I am simply trying to provide information to people curious about the topic. The page was totally biased and worthless when I first saw it.

MrHaney 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against mentioning Ms. Pagels' work. In fact, her work is already mentioned elsewhere in the article, and is linked to the exact same source. "One side claims that they are inconsistent with the Canon. The other side claims that it's because these gospels do not support the need for a church intermediary between Man and God. "

• Elaine Pagels (May 22, 2006). "The Truth at the Heart of 'The Da Vinci Code'". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2007-04-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) - opinion piece written for the "Perspective" section

As such, the entire extra paragraph is duplicated effort, which is another reason I think it should be removed. --Elonka 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, Rome wasn't built in a day either. I am committed to making this a valuable resource for people interested in an "intro" to the Gnostic Gospels.

Since you watch this page like a hawk, can you tell me why you weren't bothered by the strong bias against the GG?

MrHaney 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rome wasn't built in a day" isn't a valid reason to go against a core Wikipedia policy. Articles should be presented from a neutral point of view. "[P]eople interested in an 'intro' to the Gnostic Gospels", Wikipedia articles are not just for the "fans", but rather everybody... hence the NPOV. "[I]s considered a leading authority on the subject", who considers her a leading authority..? This seems like an opinion, to me. Finally I'd point out that such a claim requires a verifiable citation. Without meeting such criterion, I think the whole paragraph should be removed. Matthew 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

source for facts

As I read this article I'm wondering where the facts are coming from on this. For example on the gospel of Mary we have:

• two third-century fragments
  • P. Rylands 463 (1938)
  • P. Oxyrhynchus 3525 (1983)
• a fifth-century Coptic translation (Berolinensis Gnosticus 8052,1) (1955)

How can we say there is only one version. The stuff about Nicea is pure rumor. I'd like to do a factual clean up but I hate doing this on an article being this heavily edited. jbolden1517^Talk 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about it being pure rumor. I suppose it depends on who you want to believe. MrHaney 06:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK what 4th century author asserts this happened at Nicea? What 5th century author? What scholar asserts it? What author prior to the 19th century? Nicea is one of the best documented events in the history of christianity. We know every vote by every delegate on every issue. Canon never even came up, wasn't discussed at all. There was no fixed canon in 326, right after Nicea. The real story of the development of the christian bible is far more interesting than the Constantine conspiracy theory. jbolden1517^Talk 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jbolden, a question: I am having difficulty understanding the rules here re the use of brief and cited quotes from other sources, both online and off. I used a short quote the other day, cited it and it was removed. When I tried finding the wiki rules, they was rather ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHaney (talk • contribs) 15:18, April 20, 2007

Did you find WP:V WP:NOR WP:NPOV? Those are the core rules. If so what specifically were you unsure of? jbolden1517^Talk 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that all quoting is against the rules? I had a short one which was fully cited. If that's the case that's a really stupid rule. MrHaney 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jbolden, I would say that any statement you want to question, either add a {{fact}} template to it, or remove it entirely. Wikipedia rules are clear, that unsourced material can be removed on sight -- it's the obligation of those who are adding it, to include reliable sources. See WP:V. --Elonka 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Haney -- I think its time to start addressing content related issues and discussing. I've reverted to my last version excluding the remove of the progressive Christians line. Please start having a string of edits to this talk page not to the article. Reversion without discussion is a violation wikipedia policy.

1. On the issue of acceptance by Christians I've asked for a cite and you've removed the request for a cite. I don't know of any progressive Christian organization that has embraced the content of the gnostic books you mentioned. I don't know of any substantial controversy within any liberal Christian organizations. Please cite some evidence this is occurring.
2. Gnostics are not Buddhists contrary to your reading in of their material. While they engaged in mystical activities to uncover various aspects of their own nature they believed in the necessity of revelation every bit as much as the orthodox christians did. That was not a point of debate between the two groups. The belief that salvation can be achieved via. mystical information gained by direct experience is Theosophy not Gnosticism. And yes Theosophists like Mead in the 19th century did get inspiration from the gnostics. But wikipedia should not confuse what modern occultists believed with what ancient people believed
3. If wikipedia has an article on the The Da Vinci code generally we should link directly to that and not a 3rd party article. If you want that link associated with Da Code go to the book's page and edit there.
4. I'll leave the line 19 changes (about the da vinci code open) and let you start to justify the various differences.

As an aside, I can understand the frustration you are having. The kinds of stuff you want to write about you'll do much better with a section on "use of the gnostic gospels within the new age movement". Most of what you are trying to say would be true in those contexts. There you aren't asserting what the gnostics actually believed or taught but what new age teachers believe and teach about the gnostics to support their own theories. jbolden1517^Talk 11:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) jbolden1517^Talk 11:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You ask for citations. I provide them. You reject them.

I am merely trying to provide a neutral and balanced overview of the subject. Some editors here use strongly biased language against the topic.

New Age? LOL! Okay, I now understand where you are coming from. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. My goal is objectivity here re the topic. MrHaney 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion citations is part of the process. In once case It was unclear to me the citations say something nearly as strong as you would like them to, and in the other that the citation meets the normal criterial required for citations (Lee Strobal is not an expert on religious history, nor a citable source). The goal of wikipedia is not objectivity, its neutral point of view between verifiably positions of equal weight. Pagel's is an unquestionable expert on gnostic terminology. She is an expert on Sethians, Valentinians, etc... she is not an expert on social trends within the united states.

Lee Strobal I'm not sure if he's an expert on anything.

Just quoting something doesn't make it acceptable. This isn't middle school where "any cite works".

Why don't you check out Elonka's user page. To accuse her of bias in this direction is ridiculous.

jbolden1517^Talk 17:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, if you read the citations I have dug up, you will see that every point I make is backed up by credible sources. My first preference would be to actually include the relevant quote from these sources along with the citation. But even the briefest of quotes is edited out. This is in my eyes is a ridiculous policy, if it is a policy.MrHaney 16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note how I added a link to the debate about the Gnostic Gospels on the Lee Strobel show between two recognized biblical scholars. I did this because my goal here is fairness and objectivity. When I first came here the entire page was a hatchet job against these Gospels. MrHaney 17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Lee Strobel has two bible scholars with opposing viewpoints in his debate. The citation is to what is said by them, not by the host.

MrHaney 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: This isn't middle school where "any cite works".

I beg to differ on this. The average middle school student essay is superior in content and grammar to what is often published here. This is why both high school and college students are advised not to rely on wiki as a credible source. MrHaney 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion process

MrHanley you need to come to the talk page and discuss and stop just reverting. There are policies regarding tendentious editing (which is what you are doing).

Discussion Process

jbolden1517^Talk 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm out of of reverts for today. I count 5 for him. I've left messages here and on the talk page. One of you all has to leave a message on ANI regarding the 3RR violations if you want to do anything about them. jbolden1517^Talk 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

jbolden, are you not guilty of exactly the same? You keep reverting back to heavily biased and grammaticaly awkward versions. How many times can you use the phrase "fictional license" in one sentence? By the way, it's poetic licence or artistic licence, not fictional licence. See what I mean about bias shining through? MrHaney 17:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Post the version you want here and discuss the changes. Stop editing the main page on dispute material. I've stopped editing I'm just reverting and accepting some of your changes. jbolden1517^Talk 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you had time to read the citations I provided, you would see that they are backed by credible sources. I am still unclear here due to vague wording on the use of short quotes frrom external sources. I originally included one and it was removed. Can we not use short quotes here to back a statement? If not, that's absurd. MrHaney 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can quote people. The quote may get rejected or removed or... but a reference is useful. Go ahead and start proving your case. jbolden1517^Talk 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: I've stopped editing I'm just reverting and accepting some of your changes. Fine by me. From now on let's discuss further changes here first. :o) MrHaney 17:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: Yes you can quote people. The quote may get rejected or removed or... but a reference is useful. Go ahead and start proving your case.

Thank you for the clarification. There appears to be another editor or should I say "deleter" who just deletes quotes and any reference to Pagels. If I can't quote the leading scholar on the subject or even reference her here, what is the point if this page? MrHaney 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

jbolden, while we disagree on some points and agree on others, let me ask you what you think this page should be? IMHO, it should serve as an introductory resource to other more credible sources (hence my addition of external links) or should it be a page on debunking these gospels?

As I stated above, I don't have a dog in this fight. I only heard of the GG two years ago in the Harper's article and became curious about them. I don't have a strong position on them either way.

MrHaney 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be an introductory article on more credible sources. I don't disagree there. I disagree however that you are moving in that direction. I think you are moving away from credible sources to less credible sources. That's been my objection all along. You are projecting 19th century occultism (and some new age beliefs) back 17-23 hundred years to the ancient gnostics. jbolden1517^Talk 19:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Occultism> I know nothing about it. As for New Age, I disagree as well. How is pointing to the works of a Princeton Christianity scholar supposed to be "new agey"? MrHaney 19:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I own and have read all of Pagels books. I'd have no problems with cites from those. You are disagreeing with her not agreeing with her. For example your cite from her Gnostic Gospels book she outlines (in a pretty traditional way) how Hinduism influenced Alexandrian Greek though, Middle Platonism and then Gnosticism. That's wholely different then, "Gnosticism blends the teachings of Jesus Christ with elements from Eastern traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism". You also repeatedly deleted my references regarding the role of spirit in gnosticism jbolden1517^Talk 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: You also repeatedly deleted my references regarding the role of spirit in gnosticism

Are you sure that it was me and not the deleter?

Please post them here as agreed. MrHaney 19:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

MrHaney, you need to stop doing blind reverts. You are removing valid reference formatting. There are no references being removed from the article, they are just being reformatted. If you continue with this kind of activity, you risk being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. --Elonka 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And you appear to be deleting citations for no reason at all. I haven't seen any contributions here by you just an apparent censorship.MrHaney 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you play the rules jbolden and I agreed to play by? Post your recommended changes here instead of merely deleting work. MrHaney 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the key questions almost everyone will ask is "Why weren't the GGs included in the canon?" The infinitely deleted paragraph about Pagels and her op-ed piece attempts to answer this question. Note the neutral use of "a" in "a leading authority" and the use of "why it may have been rejected".

Honestly, if we can't point to this piece here then what is the point of wiki? MrHaney 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Pagels' Beyond Belief addresses where the line ended up getting drawn between orthodoxy and semi gnosticism (John vs. Thomas). Thomas wasn't even controversial at the time the canon was established. You are confusing two issues roughly 2 centuries apart. jbolden1517^Talk 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The GG are dates as early as 80 C.E. (refer to Pagels). To change the opening paragraph to trick readers into thinking it's the 4th century is truly reprehensible.

Will we discuss changes first or just change things arbitrarily?

More more dating from PBS:

Quispel and his collaborators, who first published the Gospel of Thomas, suggested the date of c. A.D. 140 for the original. Some reasoned that since these gospels were heretical, they must have been written later than the gospels of the New Testament, which are dated c. 60-l l0. But recently Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University has suggested that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, although compiled c. 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, "possibly as early as the second half of the first century" (50-100)--as early as, or earlier, than Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. MrHaney 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC) MrHaney 02:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Above error fixed MrHaney 02:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC) MrHaney 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

reference clean up but....

Elonka -- Wonderful job on reformatting those references! Small problem is the references don't actually say exactly what the text says they say. You ok with me being bold and cleaning this (and you revert anything you disagree with) or do you want me to discuss with you first? jbolden1517^Talk 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and can you give a specific example? --Elonka 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Buddhism line (removed yesterday) had 2 big problems but I corrected and you didn't seem to object. Another example is the reference to the appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels". In the DaVinci code's world this is a specific book containing the gospels which has that title. In real life the only book that is well known with that title would be Pagel's book which is about exegesis of gnostic literature (in particular gospels). jbolden1517^Talk 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re dating, from PBS: About the dating of the manuscripts themselves there is little debate. Examination of the datable papyrus used to thicken the leather bindings, and of the Coptic script, place them c. A.D. 350-400. But scholars sharply disagree about the dating of the original texts. Some of them can hardly be later than c. A.D. 120-150, since Irenaeus, the orthodox Bishop of Lyons, writing C. 180, declares that heretics "boast that they possess more gospels than there really are, and complains that in his time such writings already have won wide circulation--from Gaul through Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor. MrHaney 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct most of the documents cited were known by the 2nd century. That's a reasonable change. I suggest you raise the issue on the talk page and give Elonka a chance to respond regarding her dating of these documents. As for the buddhism claim I'd like to see some evidence of Buddhist -> Gnostic influence. jbolden1517^Talk 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on a scan through the papers at scholar.google.com, the most common description in academic journals seems to be "second century." I've tentatively changed our lead paragraph to use the wording, "around the second century." How does that sound? --Elonka 09:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Phrase

Some scholars, such as Edward Conze and Elaine Pagels, have suggested that Gnosticism blends teachings like those attributed to Jesus Christ with teachings found in Eastern traditions you have switched this to blends the teachings of Jesus Christ with those found in Eastern traditions

I'd like to know where Pagels has ever asserted a blend of Jesus's teachings is contained in any collection of writings. jbolden1517^Talk 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dating

Time to get dress for work. I've started the section on dating. If we actually going to bite this issue off, its pretty complicated and we need to start separating the gospels into origins/schools. Anyway if anyone wants to jump in on the dating issue here is a good place jbolden1517^Talk 11:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote directly from the Gnostic Gospels, But recently Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University has suggested that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, although compiled c. 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, "possibly as early as the second half of the first century" (50-100)--as early as, or earlier, than Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

1. That is Pagels quoting not asserting
2. Koester is not agreeing to a date 50-100 for Thomas
3. This is specific to Thomas and isn't applying generally to your named collection

jbolden1517^Talk 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Let's pull Pagels' name out of that sentence. --Elonka 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

dates on gospels

I'm trying to figure out where the disagreement is that's driving the request for citations. Lets take the first example, The Gospel of the Lord can be unquestionably dated to Marcion and thus the early 2nd century universally. What exactly is to be cited:

1. That Marcion authored the Gospel of the Lord
2. That Marcion was in the 2nd century

As far as I can tell the Gospel of the Lord article is the citation for both those facts. jbolden1517^Talk 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as citations. But you could pull out an appropriate citation from that article, and include it here. --Elonka 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK tell me if this works for the Marcion reference. I can do essentially the same thing for Valentinus. #4 and #5 are going to be multiple cites. jbolden1517^Talk 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For the last ref I'm totally confused. I can quote Porphyry From the first year of Gallienus Plotinus had begun to write upon such subjects as had arisen at the Conferences: when I first came to know him in this tenth year of the reign he had composed twenty-one treatises. to show the The Enneads were written during the first year of Gallienus, quote any roman Historian on Valerian for tieing that to the year 253. But that seems odd, this isn't disputed by anyone AFAIK. What exactly are you looking for here? jbolden1517^Talk 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The current dating is simply incorrect. For example,

1. G.A. Wells is neither a Biblical Scholar or historian. With regard to his writings, "[Well's] always selects from the rang of New Testament studies those extreme positions which best sut his thesis, and then weaves them together into a total account with which none of those from whom he quoted would agree." (Richard France (1982) 'The Evidence for Jesus'). Other than Well's lack of credentials - his opinion is unsourced. 2. The 'Gospels of the Lord' barely fits into the category of Gnostic. Similarly, the dating was controversial 100 years ago when first postulated by G.R.S Mead prior to any real examination by Bauer and the New School into the first two centuries of Christianity. Also, the corpus of gnostic texts we have today was simply lost making pre-1945 dating rather speculative. 3. Points 4 and 5 were referenced so I left them. 4. The traditional school of dating as the texts were mentioned in Ireneaus and Jerome respectively, does not exist as a scholarly opinion. 5. No distinction is made between the age of the manuscripts found and the composition of the text. 6. No general date is provided for the emergence of the gnostic gospels as a whole. 7. etc --Ari89 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What I added was clarification on the points - taking note of conservative, liberal and hypersceptical approaches to the dating of Thomas. Provided citations from leading scholars such as Bart Ehrman, removed the fringe pseudo-scholarship of a popular writer, removed the bias with regard to "Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari89 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dating

"Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work:

  1. Scholars like George Albert Wells..."

G.A. Wells, who is neither a biblical scholar or historian, as a scholar of repute on the topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari89 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You deleted 10 items. That's an issue with one of them. jbolden1517^Talk 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

look up to where there are 7 or so issues listed--Ari89 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

By previous consensus do you mean your previous agreement with yourself? The current dating section is insufficient and errant in multiple ways. --Ari89 (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you managed to miss it on the talk page: The current dating is simply incorrect. For example,

1. G.A. Wells is neither a Biblical Scholar or historian. With regard to his writings, "[Well's] always selects from the rang of New Testament studies those extreme positions which best sut his thesis, and then weaves them together into a total account with which none of those from whom he quoted would agree." (Richard France (1982) 'The Evidence for Jesus'). Other than Well's lack of credentials - his opinion is unsourced. 2. The 'Gospels of the Lord' barely fits into the category of Gnostic. Similarly, the dating was controversial 100 years ago when first postulated by G.R.S Mead prior to any real examination by Bauer and the New School into the first two centuries of Christianity. Also, the corpus of gnostic texts we have today was simply lost making pre-1945 dating rather speculative. 3. Points 4 and 5 were referenced so I left them. 4. The traditional school of dating as the texts were mentioned in Ireneaus and Jerome respectively, does not exist as a scholarly opinion. 5. No distinction is made between the age of the manuscripts found and the composition of the text. 6. No general date is provided for the emergence of the gnostic gospels as a whole. 7. etc --Ari89 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

--Ari89 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) original on talk page

I'd rather discuss the article here so there is a record and other editors can join in.

Good points so lets address these.

(1) agreed on sourcing for Wells. I'll take care of that. Adding fact tag now. As for France hating Wells, we have a whole page on Wells which is linked to and indicates how much France dislikes him. Further we already indicate Wells' position is disputed.

(2) Mead's hypothesis regarding L2 being GoL is also supported by Knox and Price. We can multi reference this if you want. I agree that the GoL as a "gnostic" work is questionable. That predates my involvement. I'd want to ask authors from 2007 before deleting that.

(3) OK good so now debate on those.

(4) OK I've tagged. Will see if anyone can address, including me.

(5) True. Feel free to add information about how texts may be earlier than the manuscripts we have.

(6) What do you mean by "gnostic gospels as a whole"? The whole section denies they came about at any particular time.

jbolden1517^Talk 17:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Added most for point 5. For 2, the criticisms for Mead are also applicable to Knox and it is most definitely a minority position. My contention with Wells is still there - since when was the Odes of Solomon a gnostic gospel? Similarly, the "teachings of the savior" hypothesis lost its popularity among the new school a long time ago and relies on the discredited dating of Bultmann. For more up to date treatments see Yamauchi Pre-Christian Gnosticism; Colpe's Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule: Darstellung und Kritik ihres Bildes vom gnostichen Erlosungmythus; and Prumm's Gnosis an der Wurzel des Christntums? --Ari89 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the point of Marcion's gospel - on the page for Marcion of Sinope it establishes:

Marcion is sometimes referred to as one of the gnostics, but from what assessment of his lost writings can be gleaned from his mainstream opponents, his teachings were quite different in nature.<Encyclopedia Britannica: Marcion: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of Christendom through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A dualist he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic."

So, I contend that it be removed as it is neither a Gnostic text, nor was its editor a Gnostic. --Ari89 (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) Odes to Solomon are a myth (and written as a myth) about a force of knowledge (wisdom) who descends from heaven and suffers and dies. As Turner showed (see links) this sort of myth was what gnosticism looked like starting from 100 BCE. And here we do have lots of good scholarship the whole main thesis of Pearson's "Egyptian Christianity" is that Alexandrian Judaism became Alexandrian Jewish gnosticism it was not direct. I can site King, Turner, Pearson for a wide open definition that includes these earlier styles of works.

Second for Wells Bultmann isn't "discredited". I think what you are trying to do is approach this subject from a hostile point of view. That the gnostic gospels represent an illegitimate religion with no basis in truth or history. We have a fairly strong NPOV policy here. I certainly don't object to presenting the mainstream scholarship since I think that is an important point of view to be represented but the idea that the liberal christian position pre Pagels, Turner, Pearson, King should be the only point (which is what we are debating) strikes me as introducing bias. I would drop words like "discredited". There are people who disagree and there are scholars who continue to assert. On Christ_myth#Chart we cover the alternative. I think you are trying to assume the middle and/or left column.

I think Gospel of the Lord should stay because it address the issue of lateness, that there is serious debate about whether it was L2 (Price is a recent scholar who supports this view) with a disclaimer that it isn't technical gnostic which I will add now. If we were to follow what you are suggesting by excluding (with no mention) everything before the late 2nd century as being "not gnostic enough" you end up proving late dating as a tautology and create a false impression that the canonical gospels are "earlier" that all other similar materials. jbolden1517^Talk 13:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You have obviously misinterpreted what I have said from what seems to be your own hostile perspective. Firstly, where did I exclude anything for not being gnostic enough? Marcion is not seen by scholars as gnostic, neither does the Wikipedia consensus you find yourself so fond of. If I was doing such I would be arguing against including the gospel of Thomas (which is no more than 1/3 gnostic) yet I was the one who included it. Similarly, if I were doing as you claim regarding forcing an 'artificial' late dating, I would not have referenced the earlier perspective on Thomas. You need to remove yourself from your own bias hermeneutic before making such grand claims about others. I guess I should remove myself from the habit of citing the more liberal mainstream scholars like Ehrman and openly accept all the fringe from Price to please you, right? --Ari89 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with Ehrmann being cited particularly in areas of textual criticism. I have a problem with acting as if Ehrmann's view is the only possible view. Instead of deleting material why don't you create a timeline based on your sources, and we can create a comparison table of various dates. That makes the article more informative than it is currently. jbolden1517^Talk 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I also have a problem with people acting as if Ehrman's view is the only possible view. And for that reason I put alternative views. As I said, "You need to remove yourself from your own bias hermeneutic before making such grand claims about others." --Ari89 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You tend to only cite Price, Doherty and Wells and devote majority of the content to their particular fringe view. Is there a reason as to why are you so averse to mainstream scholarship or is it all you have ever come in contact with in dealing with the marginal Christ Myth theory? *Expects to be attacked for using the words "marginal" in reference to fringe scholars* --Ari89 (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to mainstream scholarship I just thing there is more diversity than you do. I've been focusing on Wells because he is the authority on Odes of Solomon. If we get to say Thomas then Helmut Koester (Ancient Christian Gospels) puts Thomas at 50 CE. Pagels puts it end of first century but still prior to John (i.e. a source for John). I'm in favor of including sources for the mainstream dates. I do object to deleting scholarship that doesn't reflect "the mainstream" since it reflect religious bias. Please go ahead and include mainstream dates as well and source them. jbolden1517^Talk 03:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By diversity, of course, you mean deleting all mainstream scholarship and replacing it with fringe scholarship? And Wells as "the authority" on the Odes of Solomon is simply hilarious. Surely, not even you actually believe what you just said. --Ari89 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ari -- reread what I wrote, I'm talking about scholarly diversity and I am inviting you to add material. I'm not the one advocating deletion. I'm inviting you to create counter dates and source them, that is deletion. This discussion will be much easier if you stop trying to create straw men and address what I am actually writing. 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. It was another of your claims that I am being intellectually dishonest. You have made this on many occasions. You get really irritated when someone suggests something different to what your fringe scholars believe. "I just thing there is more diversity than you do." Yet you deleted where I invited mainstream scholarship into the issue, etc. Once again you try and throw the blame on me with your accusations of attacking straw man arguments. How pathetic. --Ari89 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Marcion

To address the issue.

1. The Marcion article states Marcion is not a gnostic
2. This article states Marcion is not a Gnostic.

So, why is the gospel included? The previous answer with regard to a conspiracy to suppress it was simply not good enough. --Ari89 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Because Marcion has been grouped with these guys for over 1800 years. Moreover this is one of the gospels people quite often discuss. Further origin of GoL is important for discussing the dating on the canonical gospels so any good discussion of dates of canonical and non canonical gospels is going to have to include it. Mainstream scholarship is starting to question that whole category of gnosticism.

The other reason of course is that in 2007 when we were putting this section together we wanted gospels with strong dating information as part of a compromise. At the time I was having to argue for scholarship against someone who was trying to push a single view that the whole collection of gospels is authentic and 1st century (i.e. a 19th century occultist view). jbolden1517^Talk 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see no reason. The article is about the Gnostic gospels not Marcion or the dating of the canonical gospels. With regard to the claim that it is the most often discussed gospel I really do not see it. I see Thomas dominating the scene, emphasised by its traditions from both proto-orthodox and gnostic communities.

Ironic that now you are the one holding over emphasising fringe scholarship. I hope I am not next! --Ari89 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"(non canonical and heretical but not actually gnostic in philosophy)" There is a lot packed into that sentence and it seems rather obtrusive. I think it should be worked into the text. Also, should it be 'philosophy' or 'theology'? --Ari89 (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a rephrase? No problem is you want to change to theology. jbolden1517^Talk 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not a theology, theology is the study of God. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. To be a gnostic is to place one's belief that correct knowledge will lead to salvation; thus it has nothing to do with any sort of theology. Theology would be about Christ's nature, or God, the trinity etc; this is about how to live one's life; very much a philosophy. Gabr-el 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I worked through the Marcion Gospel, added some dates. Need Mead be mentioned by name in the text? I think a few references should be dropped from the dot point. --Ari89 (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine we could drop Mead's name. I'm kinda neutral. Right now what the footnotes show is: Mead (theosophy connection), Knox (Bultmann style scholarship), Price (Christ Myth) to demonstrate the various schools that support the oppositional dating. On the other hand we could potentially just include the link to the main article on Gospel of the Lord and Knox if we had to trim. Why do you want to? jbolden1517^Talk 16:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unclarity

"The Gospel of the Lord, a gnostic but otherwise non-canonical heretical text" This is an odd wording, making it sound like most gnostic texts would be canonical. Maybe it was supposed to say "non-gnostic"??? Mcswell (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Meaning

gnostic = enlightenment = buddha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.231.216 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently came out a female scholar, certain Sara Hermon, that has written a book " The Galileus Gospel" (italian language). She claims to have been a pupil of prof. Morton Smith, maybe by mailing because she lived in Europe and not in USA; anyway, it seems they met sometimes in England many years ago. We don't know if Hermon's book is fiction or reality, but it's amazing how many similarities the novel shows, compared to Smith hypothesis about the missing and secret Mark gospel, an handwriting much more gnostic then canonical ones.(An italian reader of "The Galileus Gospel" by Sara Hermon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.21.121 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gnostic Gospels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707214841/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org:80/Neoplatonism to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Neoplatonism#History_and_Doctrines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)