/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3197138]

Okay /lit/, I'm on the final stretch of the Nag Hammadi Library (like a hundred pages left to go). Ask me anything about what I've read so far in it and I'll answer to the best of my recollection of all that I read within it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library

The ones I recall most clearly, which were complete enough to read:

The Hypostasis of the Archons
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Phillip
The Acts of Peter and The Twelve
The Sentences of Sextus
The (Gnostic) Apocalypse of Peter
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Apocryphon of John
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
The Apocalypse of James

However, there are some things I could say about these texts that apply to many other texts within the collection that I have not mentioned.

Also here's some related videos for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_9MfFewdTo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zWbL8Uqfw

[Anonymous No.3197223]

bumps

[Anonymous No.3197228]

What would you say is the single greatest departure from the biblical canon in all you've read?

[Anonymous No.3197229]

Q. Why?

[Anonymous No.3197254]

>>3197228

Well the greatest departure that occurs in several texts is the most obvious in regards to the interpretation of the relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament. That is that the god who created the universe we live in and the god who sent Jesus Christ to save us are not the same god, but rather there are at least two separate gods at work in the world, one responsible for evil and ignorance who also happens to be the creator of the world and one who is above him that is eternal and perfect who pitied the creations of this demiurge (which means 'architect') who bore some of his own light within them. Some of the books say there aren't just these two gods, but hundreds, even myriads of gods, but all, good or evil, are beneath the Supreme Heavenly Father.

In regards to New Testament canon alone, one of the major departures is found in at least a couple of the books, particularly the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter which share a tradition about the crucifixion that Jesus was not put to death on the cross at all, but rather that it only appeared Jesus was crucified and in fact someone else was put on the cross in his place while Jesus stood by in the background laughing at the whole spectacle. One book says the person on the cross was actually Simon of Cyrene. Coincidentally, this actually shares a lot in common with traditional Islamic interpretations of the crucifixion.

[Anonymous No.3197264]

>>3197254
That's pretty cool. How pleasant of a read is the actual Bible? I think I'm gonna have to get around to reading it eventually.

[Anonymous No.3197267]

It seems to me (and only cuz I've recently read The Gnostic Gospels) that most of those texts all have a much more sensible, almost secular vibe going on in them compared to the Catholic texts that became canonical. Far more similar to Eastern religions than anything else.

Is this overrepresented in Pagels' work? Are there exceptions to this or are they largely unified in motivation like the Old/New Testaments.

Any you'd suggest reading in particular

[Anonymous No.3197271]

>>3197264

>How pleasant of a read is the actual Bible?

Varies, depending on the books you choose to read.

[Anonymous No.3197276]

>>3197229
Because you're a faggot

[Anonymous No.3197293]

>>3197138

Is there a comprehensive translated collection w/ footnotes & whatnot that you're using? Like an anthology? or is it several texts w/ diff. translators? I could get behind reading this, eventually. Do you have good scholarly sources?

[Anonymous No.3197297]

>>3197254
>this actually shares a lot in common with traditional Islamic interpretations of the crucifixion.

>this actually shares a lot in common with traditional Islamic interpretations of the crucifixion.

Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.3197305]

>>3197297
Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified either.

[Anonymous No.3197314]

http://vimeo.com/7574344

here is the first of several videos of a lecture on gnosticism, which relates to the books found in the Nag Hammadi library

[Anonymous No.3197319]

>>3197267

The thing is that Early Christianity was a very diverse playground of different belief systems, influenced by various other traditions at the time which were already popular when the teachings of Jesus Christ entered the scene. Each of the Nag Hammadi Library codices is actually separate book compiled, most likely, by different scribes and so when you'll notice diversity of belief within the NHL itself in regards to particular interpretations. For example, one book says the Jewish prophets like Moses and them were ignorant and did not know the true God, while other texts are extremely Jewish in their character, relying heavily on Old Testament references and passages, albeit with a Hellenistic touch, and don't condemn the Jewish prophets at all and even claim some were true.

Although there are some hints of the influence of religions like the Zoroastrians on the NHL, as evidenced by the book called Zostrianos in the collection which is fragmented alternate interpretation of Zoroaster's story. What characterizes the Nag Hammadi texts most is a pervading influence of Neo-Platonism, Hermeticism and to some extent, esoteric Jewish teachings. It's a very Hellenistic collection. However, through all this, many books don't contradict many beliefs or histories that were accepted by the Orthodoxy at all.

What seems to be present in the NHL books though, even those that are Orthodox in their nature, is the strong sense of elitism. Many texts claim to be secret teachings or are purposely vague and cryptic so only those "in the know" can understand them. This didn't fit with the emerging orthodox churches vision of a more universal church and salvation message.

[Anonymous No.3197334]

>>3197293

You can buy the whole collection translated. The collection I have is translated very literally, which means that the fragmented texts and parts are not filled in, but left blank where the actual Coptic codex's words were damaged which I like. Most complete collections also come with introductions that provide the scholarly theories and historical contexts of the books in them.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nag-Hammadi-Scriptures-Translation/dp/0061626007/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qi
d=1354332773&sr=8-3&keywords=the+lost+gospels

[Anonymous No.3197364]

A rather nice comparative list of the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, though most of the quotes of Jesus are derived from the gospel of Gnostics

http://www.johnworldpeace com/budjesus.asp

Good philosophy is good philosophy. It would seem the word of Jesus in the writings of Hammadi penetrate deeper into the core of the matter

[Anonymous No.3197368]

>>3197297

>Care to elaborate?

Muslim traditions tend to state that Jesus was not crucified, but somebody else was crucified instead, either Judas Iscariot or one of Jesus' followers who willingly gave up his life. Some of the texts in Nag Hammadi Library compliment this idea by saying straight up that Jesus did not die on the cross and someone else in his likeness was put on the cross while he escaped unharmed. This indicates that the Muhammadan interpretations of Jesus' crucifixion can be traced at least 400 years before Muhammad was even born and historical records seem to hint that the groups that taught such ideas in the early Christian period were still around in small pockets well into the first centuries of Muhammad's followers.


Other texts agree with the idea that Jesus did suffer on the cross for people's sins. The NHL should be approached as a collection of separate "other bibles" used by various early groups in Christianity that included the texts which THEY felt were authorative scripture. So differences of opinion and theology between books in the NHL is expected.

[Anonymous No.3197375]

I recall hearing Gnosticism existing before the formation of Christianity/Catholicism. Any accuracy in this?

[Anonymous No.3197431]

Does Hammadi Scripture compliment the Bible?

[Anonymous No.3197434]

>>3197375

Although the term "Gnostic" is used to describe certain groups and teachings of the early Christian years, there was never a unified movement within Christianity that called itself "Gnostic Christianity," as opposed to "regular Christianity." The word "gnosis" simple means "knowledge," and a "gnostic" referred to someone who was in the know, who had access to certain knowledge of a much greater type. Even some of the early orthodox church fathers acknowledged the existence of those who had divine gnosis. But the idea behind gnosis has been part of the mystical tradition of every religion. Although we categorize these groups as Gnostics, these groups never strutted around and said "Well, I'm a Christian, but a Gnostic Christian." That wasn't how it was understood even by the church fathers who were condemning them. We just do that now in scholarship for the sake of convenience.

[Anonymous No.3197475]

>>3197431

Some texts are very orthodox in their nature and could have easily fit into the Bible without contradicting a single thing. The reason perhaps these texts were not included in the Bible by the proto-orthodoxy was probably because:

1. The authorship was dubious. Some of the emerging church leaders doubted the authenticity of these works' claims to apostolic authorship. One example would be the Acts of Peter and the Twelve, which has no real obvious heresies according to the proto-orthodoxy in the slightest.

2. Some of these works are anonymous. Sure, the four gospels are anonymous and fit the standards set by the orthodoxy, but these already had gathered a tradition around them saying they were apostolic works, whereas some works in the NHL are written anonymously and didn't have a tradition of apostolic authorship around them to give some extra oomph.

3. Some of these books, while perhaps not explicitly contradicting orthodox theology had already gathered a reputation of association with heretics. And when St. Athanasius sent out letters telling his congregations what they shouldn't read, they were encouraged not to even touch ANY of the books that he and his fellow bishops had listed as authorative. This helped shy many people away from any text not part of that list (which was the New Testament we know today) even if the content did not contain any explicit heresy. By the time Christianity became the state religion, even just possessing a book that was associated with deemed heretics could land you excommunication.

[Anonymous No.3197489]

>>3197475

>he and his fellow bishops had listed as heretical.

fix'd

[Anonymous No.3197677]

gnostic bump

[Anonymous No.3197757]

>>3197254
>Some of the books say there aren't just these two gods, but hundreds, even myriads of gods, but all, good or evil, are beneath the Supreme Heavenly Father.
This sounds fascinating. Do they try to give the more polytheistic interpretation a philosophical basis, or is it just stated to be the case?

[Anonymous No.3197788]

>>3197757
No OP but I always thought that is how they explained all other religions.

[Anonymous No.3197940]

>>3197489

Das ignant.

[Anonymous No.3197954]

>>3197757

The philosophical basis seems to be Platonic in nature. The people who wrote these books were very influenced. The polytheism appears based on the idea that as you go higher and higher above each level, each of these celestial realms is inhabited by various gods and angels of different levels of perfection of imperfection. These angels and/or gods governed their own respective areas of each of these aeons. The goal of the gnostic was to obtain the knowledge and the discipline to break through the realms of the demiurge and his inferior archons and into the more pure levels of the archons of the Heavenly Father. Certain human beings could also be awarded with not only holiness but godhood as well at this level.

The philosophical basis would appear to be based on the reasoning of Plato's metaphor of the cave as well as Socrate's understanding of man popping his head through the heavens and seeing the higher realms of existents like the fish that pops it head out of the murky water and sees the much higher and more civilized realm of man. There is even a part of the NHL that is a reworked segment of Plato's Republic in Coptic language.

[Anonymous No.3197965]

>>3197757
The philosophical basis seems to be Platonic in nature. The people who wrote these books were very influenced by Hellenistic schools of philosophy, even Hellenistic Judaism. The polytheism appears based on the idea that as you go higher and higher above each level, each of these celestial realms is inhabited by various gods and angels of different levels of perfection or imperfection. These angels and/or gods governed their own respective areas of each of these aeons. The goal of the gnostic was to obtain the knowledge and the discipline to break through the realms of the demiurge and his inferior archons and into the more pure levels of the archons in close proximity and favor of the Heavenly Father. Certain human beings could also be awarded with not only holiness but godhood as well at this level.

The philosophical basis would appear to be based on the reasoning of Plato's metaphor of the cave as well as Socrate's understanding of man popping his head through the heavens and seeing the higher realms of existents like the fish that pops it head out of the murky water and sees the much higher and more civilized realm of man. There is even a part of the NHL that is a reworked segment of Plato's Republic in Coptic language.

[Anonymous No.3198065]

>>3197965
>The philosophical basis would appear to be based on the reasoning of Plato's metaphor of the cave as well as Socrate's understanding of man popping his head through the heavens and seeing the higher realms of existents like the fish that pops it head out of the murky water and sees the much higher and more civilized realm of man.

Broadly speaking, this is what all mystical theologies teach, pre-Platonic and post-Platonic.

[Anonymous No.3198100]

>>3198065

The gnostics, ironically, understand some things in a more literal way though. They appeal to the reasoning of Platonic ideas to sort of justify their believing in these histories. It wasn't that they borrowed these ideas from Platonism, but they found wisdom and they found something to make their case in the works of Neoplatonism. They used them to make sense of their radical ideas. The writers of the NHL generally agreed that the world itself is a literal prison where sparks of light from the Heavenly Father were being held against their will.

You see, the most common idea presented is that the demiurge creates the world, then he creates the body, our spirits are put in the body and imprisoned in the realm of the flesh. This demiurge also goes so far as to put his angels in control of the various facets of the body to influence the spirit and keep it contained. For example, there's an angel in charge of your loins that keeps your sexual desire a goin' so this way you may be blinded by sexual lust from being able to see the realm beyond the domain of the demiurge who was posing as the true God, when he in fact was a "miscarriage," from the realms close to the Heavenly Father as the NHL puts it. Jesus then comes down from the Heavenly Father to save the poor bastard children of the demiurge, perhaps even the demiurge himself, by teaching them the means by which they can return to the Heavenly Father. These gnostics generally rejected the doctrine of the carnal resurrection, and instead believed that your spirit ascends to the heavens and depending on its level of gnosis and righteousness is barred or permitted to return to the Father. The works of Platonism helped give these groups a sort feeling of antiquity to their ideas some of these schools of thought are believed to have existed in a more primitive form before the arrival of the stories of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.3198126]

>>3198100

Lawdy. Interesting stuff there.

[Anonymous No.3198272]

>>3198126

Indeedy Indeed

[Anonymous No.3198281]

>>3198100

Does the Hammadi mention the logistics of Physical Matter?

[Anonymous No.3198305]

Is the demiurge both Benevolent and Belligerent?

[Anonymous No.3198342]

>>3198281

Many works in the Library makes a sharp differentiation between matter and mind. The understanding is that the body that we live in and the physical universe this world resides in is something foreign to our spirit, but which our spirit happens to reside in. Now this rings true for the mystical tradition of many world religions today, but what the gnostic works of the library have a tendency to do is characterize the material of this world and the very universe we live in as being an undesirable and even inherently evil thing. So there's such a stark dualism between Physical Matter and Spirit.

Some of the books take a more middle ground where there is a higher physical body that is just more spiritual in nature. The idea here is that there's a transmigration of souls of sorts into bodies that match their own spiritual states. The highest beings of course are those who are less physical and have dissolved, but there's a hierarchy of varying degrees. You can still be in a more spiritual body, but not be under the dominion of the demiurge, but instead dwell in a higher and pure realm.

However, there is a tendency among some of the books to regard everything and anything material as undesirable. A person's goal is to completely shed their spirit of physical matter because any and everything seen as related to physical matter is under control of the demiurge and is thus inherently evil, even if it is less evil in form from something else, if you have not completely "dissolved" so to speak, you are still enslaved.

[Anonymous No.3198349]

>>3198281
>>3198342

An example of the differences in practice between the groups represented in the Nag Hammadi Library that reflected their theological differences that I stated would be how some groups still saw marriage as a sacred thing while other groups saw marriage as adultery since sex was still sex and physical sexual intercourse is a product of the demiurge's creation and thus can't be made pure. Likewise, some groups still chose to practice Baptism, while other groups wouldn't because Baptism required the use of water, which was an inherently impure substance and a few words would not allow such a physical substance, indefinitely impure by its nature, to make anything pure.

[Anonymous No.3199661]

bumpity

[Anonymous No.3200218]

>>3198349

Quite radical I must say in regards to sensual experiences, though Celibacy is recommended by most sects.

[Anonymous No.3200246]

Old testament is reference to this demiurge and New testament is reference to the supreme father?

[Anonymous No.3200274]

OP:

I've been meaning to read the bible for a while (have Oxford's Annotated + Apocraphya) but have been sidetracked with Greco Roman philosophy. Do you recommend reading the NHL as an addition to the Bible, on its own, or not at all? Does it bring further insight to Western/Christian morals and conventions, or is it a separate entity altogether that didn't have a huge impact outside of specific followings?

[Anonymous No.3200292]

>>3200274

My name is not OP, however I would assume recommending the NHL coupled with the Bible will provide a most excellent reading experience, so do indulge in these ancient texts without restraint.

[Anonymous No.3200303]

Does NHL mention reincarnation?

[Anonymous No.3201381]

>>3200218
Pretty much all the sects regard celibacy highly. However, some of the sects whose writings are contained in the NHL are far more moderate and liberal in their approach to sexuality, not to mention "the flesh." For example, the Valentinians, whose works are found in the NHL in particularly good condition were a sect who were known to defend marriage and child rearing very aggressively, while simultaneously condemning sexual debauchery. But while the Valentinian school practiced stuff like Baptism, complete with special prayers found in the NHL, and celebrated marriage, other groups were so fierce in their support of asceticism, it's almost a surprise to me that they didn't start saying breathing was unclean and forbidden. So some gnostic groups here were advocates of what we might call a middle ground between themselves and that growing segment of Christianity that would later establish itself as the orthodoxy we know in our day.

Ptolemy, a prominent early teacher of the Valentinian school was written by the Church Fathers as having said:

>"Whoever has been in the world and has not loved a woman in such a way as to unite himself with her (i.e. marry her) is not from the Truth and will not attain to the Truth!"

This is a strong contrast to other groups of similar persuasions, such as those who agreed with the teacher Montanus or with Marcion and his crowd that marriage was absolutely forbidden.

[Anonymous No.3201392]

>>3200246
>Old testament is a reference to this demiurge and New testament is reference to the supreme father?


It's not really as simple as that with the NHL. Some books makes positive use and reference to the books found in the Old Testament, one is filled with direct quotes from Ezekiel and Jeremiah and the Psalms with no reference to the Demiurge at all. Meanwhile, other books like Hypostasis of the Archons, The Apocryphon of John, and On the Origin of the World are pretty much alternate tellings of the Genesis story from this perspective of there being an evil and/or ignorant demiurge (who is typically called 'Yaldabaoth') and perfect and invincible God high above him. For example, Yaltabaoth is quoted as saying "I am a jealous god, no other gods are there before me." Pretty much directly quoting the Old Testament. So, on one end, some of these texts seem to venerate the Jewish prophets as being inspired themselves by the truth from God, while perhaps interpreting their stories and teachings a little differently in light of this demiurge, while others explicitly condemn them as being misled by the demiurge. Works like The Treatise on the Resurrection and On the Exegesis of the Soul don't condemn the Jewish prophets but quote the Old Testament books and mention them with great respect.

Some books state the demiurge is rebellious and malevolent, taking on the role of the Devil, while others portray him as just a little ignorant. Some say he is doomed to burn in a coming day of divine judgement, while other books say that he himself is repentant and rejoiced when the existence and splendor of the Heavenly Father was confirmed for him. Some books state right out or imply that Heavenly Father himself did create the universe, albeit through a demiurge or group of demiurges who may or may not have been consciously aware of his influence in the affair. So there's a strong amount of diversity here.

[Anonymous No.3202689]

>>3200274

Some of the books in the NHL require a little bit of knowledge of the Bible, but you don't necessarily need to have read every book in the Bible to get the references made in the NHL. But it helps to know what they are talking about by at least having read some of the New Testament and at least the book of Genesis and Exodus. Reading them side by side is a worthwhile experience tho