When the [...], he grasped him, having bound him upon [...], and he was filled with wisdom. He bore witness to the truth [...] the power, and he went into Imperishability, the place whence he came forth, having left the world, which has the appearance of the night, and those that whirl the stars in it. This, therefore, is the true testimony: When man comes to know himself and God, who is over the truth, he will be saved, and he will crown himself with the crown unfading.
John was begotten by the World through a woman, Elizabeth; and Christ was begotten by the world through a virgin, Mary. What is (the meaning of) this mystery? John was begotten by means of a womb worn with age, but Christ passed through a virgin's womb. When she had conceived, she gave birth to the Savior. Furthermore, she was found to be a virgin again. Why, then do you (pl.) err and not seek after these mysteries, which were prefigured for our sake?
It is written in the Law concerning this, when God gave a command to Adam, "From every tree you may eat, but from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, "On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened." And Eve obeyed, and she stretched forth her hand; she took from the tree and ate; she also gave to her husband with her. And immediately they knew that they were naked, and they took some fig-leaves (and) put them on as girdles.
andrewcriddle wrote:I've been reading Lundhaug and Jenott The monastic origins of the Nag Hammadi codices and I'm not sure what to make of it.
They ... argue that the codices were probably written by Pachomian monks. Who were the main monastic group in the area and whom we know had issues over the use of apocryphal non-canonical texts. The Pachomian monks certainly had the resources to write the codices and the early Pachomians were probably less orthodox than the later histories represent them as being.
I'm doubtful about this, the sort of people who would have collected together the texts in the codices for their spiritual edification seem IMO to be more individualistic and syncretistic than is plausible for cenobitic monks such as the Pachomians.
This does probably amount to postulating a hypothetical group of anchorites of unusual theology as the writers of the codices, but this is not IMO implausible.
DCHindley wrote:My apologies in advance if this response seems a bit disjointed, as I am trying to use my mouse left handed and type with my usual leading arm in a sling. Yes, I had that rotator cuff surgery again, this time to the opposite shoulder. Fun fun ...
Anyways, history has a way to make the rough edges of our pasts disappear in the retelling, so it is not impossible for the established histories (those approved by the prevailing religious authorities) to have understated or completely omitted instances of then merely-heterodox but later heretic-for sure writings being valued for whatever reason by some monks at some monasteries.
From what I understand, although I am no expert on this, a rather large number of small groups of desert monks were scattered throughout the eastern Mediterranean for several hundred years, petering-out significantly, I think, around a century after Constantine bestowed his blessing upon the faith, and authorized members of the proto-orthodox establishment (bishops, presbyters and deacons) began to standardize their divergent rites and dogmatic beliefs.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Charles Wilson, davidbrainerd, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], JoeWallack, lsayre, Majestic-12 [Bot], Michael BG, MrMacSon, MSNbot Media, outhouse and 47 guests