The Nag Hammadi Library

[sandandfoam]

I'm going through The Nag Hammadi Library for my first time. So far I've readThe Apocryphon of James, The Gospel of Truth, and The Treatise on The Resurrection. It's fascinating.
There's a lot in there.
I'd like to talk to some of you who are familiar with it as I'm going through it in order that I might:-( a) pick up what I'd otherwise miss on my own, and( b) improve my understanding of what I do pick up.
Anyone like to discuss it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would discuss it with you, but we'd have to move it out of this DIR.

 

[sandandfoam]

I would discuss it with you, but we'd have to move it out of this DIR.

Perfect, please move it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which translation are you using?

 

[doppelganger]

Can you narrow down a bit what it is you want to discuss? Take it in pieces maybe?

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm using one edited by James M. Robinson, HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.
Could we just discuss it book by book, starting with 'the Apocryphon of James' and see what comes up? I imagine there will be different things to discuss in different books?
I'll go and read the Apocryphon of James again, but off the top of my head the two things that grabbed me in it were the idea that reason belongs to and is the nature of the soul, and the idea that the kingdom of God belongs to those who put themselves to death. I wondered was this along the same lines as the Buddhist idea of no-self and what impact (if any) Buddhist type thought might have had on the writers of these books?

 

[sandandfoam]

I read through 'The Apocryphon of James' again.
I am curious as to the significance attached to the appearance of Jesus 550 days after the resurrection. Why 550 days? seems like a funny number?
Anyway, I found an almost Buddhist like thread going through the book. 'Be in want of reason', and 'The kingdom of God belongs to those who put themselves to death', in particular stood out to me. The first reminded me of the Buddhas idea of questioning everything and the second of the idea of 'no-self'.
The statement that prophecy ended with John, and that Jesus has spoken openly and in parables but people were missing his point resonated with me. It seems that when the author also says people should accompany and not pursue him,and he talks of awakening, and heaven through knowledge, it seems he is saying that this whole business of heaven is not out there to be chased after but inside to be found through reason and an open mind.I think this reason and open mind is referred to in the section about 'Be in want of reason' and 'become full of spirit'. The idea that 'Blessed will they be who have spoken out and obtained grace for themselves' seems to me to reinforce the internal rather than external nature of 'heaven'.
I also perceived an internal aspect to the statement "He who will receive life and believe in the kingdom will never leave it" - It reminded me of a Zen idea that I read somewhere (Steve Hagen maybe?) that it is impossible to be anywhere but here and now.
Oh - I nearly forgot, I took "Woe to those who have seen the son of man" as meaning that those who see a physical Jesus are missing the point.
My final point for now relates to a piece I know that I didn't get. What is the 'good will not enter into the world" expressing?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I read through 'The Apocryphon of James' again.
I am curious as to the significance attached to the appearance of Jesus 550 days after the resurrection. Why 550 days? seems like a funny number?

I dunno.

Anyway, I found an almost Buddhist like thread going through the book. 'Be in want of reason', and 'The kingdom of God belongs to those who put themselves to death', in particular stood out to me. The first reminded me of the Buddhas idea of questioning everything and the second of the idea of 'no-self'.

I think that this is a gnostic concept of the disdain for the material world that has been created by the evil / ignorant creator.

'The kingdom of God belongs to those who put themselves to death' = 'live according to reason / divine spark in complete independence from the flesh'.

Any parallels to Buddhism are coincidental.

 

[sandandfoam]

I dunno.



I think that this is a gnostic concept of the disdain for the material world that has been created by the evil / ignorant creator.

'The kingdom of God belongs to those who put themselves to death' = 'live according to reason / divine spark in complete independence from the flesh'.

Any parallels to Buddhism are coincidental.

Thanks for discussing this. Dad!
I have a couple of more general questions.
How would the writers of the Nag Hammadi texts have been geographically located, were they in the same area as those writers whose books became the Bible?
Were they written in the same time frame, or are they a little earlier or later than the bible?
Are there many fragments found elsewhere that are the same as the texts in the Nag Hammadi?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe that all of these questions are addressed in the introduction to Robinson's translation. If they aren't in your copy, they may be available online.

How would the writers of the Nag Hammadi texts have been geographically located, were they in the same area as those writers whose books became the Bible?

Most likely Egypt, but Egypt would be a hub for ideas passing all around the Empire due to trade and the attraction of students to the library and university.

Were they written in the same time frame, or are they a little earlier or later than the bible?

The bulk of them were Second century CE... I believe. Some as late as 4th.

Are there many fragments found elsewhere that are the same as the texts in the Nag Hammadi?

No, that's why it's so significant. There may be some references in the church fathers to titles of works found at Nag Hammadi, but the description of the content are different. So either the fathers didn't know what they were talking about, they were lying, or they knew of different writings of the same name.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, that's why it's so significant. There may be some references in the church fathers to titles of works found at Nag Hammadi, but the description of the content are different. So either the fathers didn't know what they were talking about, they were lying, or they knew of different writings of the same name.

Correction: There are some fragments of a few texts.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I have always had an interest in the Nag Hammadi Library, specifically because there was a time when I identified myself as a Gnostic Christian. My beliefs have since then changed, but they are certainly fascinating texts. My favorite as a practicioner was the "Gospel of Thomas".

 

[doppelganger]

I think that this is a gnostic concept of the disdain for the material world that has been created by the evil / ignorant creator.

Which may mean more to a modern person reading it to think about it as a philosophical metaphor or parable.

Any parallels to Buddhism are coincidental.

You seem overly sure of that.

 

[sandandfoam]

Any parallels to Buddhism are coincidental.

I was reading in the introduction to Elaine Pagels 'The Gnostic Gospels' today that the British scholar of Buddhism, Edward Conze suggests that the Hindu or Buddhist tradition had an influence on gnosticism. It quotes him(p.19) as saying 'Buddhists were in touch with the Thomas Christians in South India".
She says that the title of the Gospel of Thomas, may indicate the influence of Indian tradition(p.20), and she also mentions that Buddhist missionaries had been proselytizing in Alexandria at around the time gnosticism flourished.
I don't know nearly enough to attempt to debate the point. But I'd be interested to know your opinion of what Elaine Pagels wrote.

 

[sandandfoam]

I had a good look at 'The Gospel of Truth' today too. One thing that stood out to me, was the passage on p.41 where "He was nailed to a tree and became a fruit of the knowledge of the father", it then continues that those who ate the fruit became glad.
I thought it a really striking image. It appears the author wanted us to think of Adam and Eve, and the myth surrounding that. Or am I reading too much into it?

 

[Orontes]

I'm using one edited by James M. Robinson, HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.
Could we just discuss it book by book, starting with 'the Apocryphon of James' and see what comes up? I imagine there will be different things to discuss in different books?
I'll go and read the Apocryphon of James again, but off the top of my head the two things that grabbed me in it were the idea that reason belongs to and is the nature of the soul, and the idea that the kingdom of God belongs to those who put themselves to death. I wondered was this along the same lines as the Buddhist idea of no-self and what impact (if any) Buddhist type thought might have had on the writers of these books?

Hello,

I think conflating Buddhist with Gnostic Thought is problematic. The base theoretical positioning of Buddhism and Gnostic Movements are diametrically opposed. One simple example is Buddhist Thought rejects eternalist stances which are fundamental to Gnostic stances.

I was reading in the introduction to Elaine Pagels 'The Gnostic Gospels' today that the British scholar of Buddhism, Edward Conze suggests that the Hindu or Buddhist tradition had an influence on gnosticism. It quotes him(p.19) as saying 'Buddhists were in touch with the Thomas Christians in South India".
She says that the title of the Gospel of Thomas, may indicate the influence of Indian tradition(p.20), and she also mentions that Buddhist missionaries had been proselytizing in Alexandria at around the time gnosticism flourished.
I don't know nearly enough to attempt to debate the point. But I'd be interested to know your opinion of what Elaine Pagels wrote.

Buddhism is one of the great evangelistic faiths, but it never gained much sway in the West. I think one of the reasons from a Greek perspective is Buddhist Thought had no rejoinder to Parmenides (by which I mean the basic logical positioning was too far removed). As for Gnostic Christians: it doesn't follow that the tradition that places Thomas in India is the same as the Gnostics who wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[gnostic]

I thought it a really striking image. It appears the author wanted us to think of Adam and Eve, and the myth surrounding that. Or am I reading too much into it?

Gnostic Christians have always had different view about the Tree of Knowledge, and especially about Eve.

Whereas the mainstream (or Pauline) Christians viewed Eve as the cause of the "Original Sin" and therefore wicked, she was viewed by Gnostics as the only two, trying to do the right thing, to get rid of the ignorance that the archons (false gods) and that their spirits was meant to be at the pleroma, "fullness", the true home of human spirits. The archons had trapped the human soul in a physical body, to enslave the light (soul) and use it to increase its own power.

The fruit was one of the mean of gaining gnosis that would allow human to ascend.

I have only read Gospel of Truth once before, a couple of years ago, but I have read the Apocryphron of John a number of times, because of the all Gnostic texts, it explained the purpose of Gnosticism through its myth about cosmology, origin and most important of all, ascension through knowledge (gnosis) and not just faith (ignorance) and repetence of sin.

 

[UnityNow101]

Anybody interested in reading some of the fragments found in Nag Hammadi, but do not have any books pertaining to the topic, you can read them here:

Nag Hammadi Library Codex Index

 

[Ilias Ahmad]

Excerpt from the Apocalypse of Peter, text uncovered from the Nag Hammadi library:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"
The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place."
But he said to me, "I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

Very interesting. This seems to confirm the Islamic position that Jesus was not crucified, but someone was substituted on the cross who identically resembled him:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]That they said (in boast): "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them (Quran 4:157) [/FONT]

 

[sandandfoam]

Very interesting. This seems to confirm the Islamic position that Jesus was not crucified, but someone was substituted on the cross who identically resembled him:
[FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT]

Or is it saying that the physical Jesus was crucified, but the spiritual one was not?