Talk:Nag Hammadi library
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Error
There seems to be an error loading the Gnostic Cross image. Sadly, I'm not sure how to fix this...
[edit] Renaming suggestion
The information on this page is excellent, however the subject matter in current popular culture seems to be far better known by the name of Gnostic Gospels than "Nag Hammadi library". Even looking at the references on the page, the books that are quoted tend to use the name Gnostic Gospels. I therefore propose moving this page to Gnostic Gospels (where I saw that someone had created a stub page, since they couldn't find this one, but I changed it into a redirect for now). Any opinions supporting or opposing the move? --Elonka 12:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- My only concern would be that there are other Gnostic Gospels that are not included in the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the Gospel of Mary. And so I would agree that popular culture is now refering to the Library as the Gnostic Gospels, but should not the encyclopedia retain some accuracy in its definitions? Perhaps the Gnostic Gospels page needs writing as another, separate, article? 22/6/06 19.43
-
- I agree with the previous suggestion that there should be a separate page for the Gnostic Gospels and this page should retain its current name. Perhaps I am better informed than most members of 'current popular culture' but I was certainly looking under "Nag Hammadi library" for the information on this page. Although the Nag Hammadi library contains texts that are common to the Gnostic Gospels it does not, for example, contain the Pistis Sophia which is a foundation of Gnostic belief. The Gnostic Gospels should be dealt with separately in order to avoid the type of confusion that appears to be prevalent in 'current popular culture'. Surely, an important role of the encyclopeia is to redress such confusion. 2006-09-15. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.2.124.251 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Holy Blood, Holy grail
I've altered it from the blatently anti-HbHg statement "...which has been since proven to be unreliable, as much of that book's research and claims of "fact" were based on forged medieval documents which had been created for the Priory of Sion hoax." to "Much of that book's research was based on the hypothesis that allegedly forged medieval documents which had been created for the Priory of Sion hoax were in fact, what they claimed to be."
The reasons being that: 1) The research by the authors of HbHg was using the Priory documents to fill in spots already left blank by our history books. They weren't deliberitly pulling stuff out of their asses as the old line suggests, rather, they were analyzing if the Priory Docuement's attempts to fill the holes left by scholarly works are at all plausible. 2) They don't make claims of fact, that clearly lay out that their sections dealing with the Priory Documents are based off of Hypotheses and speculation, they make no effort to hide that and say "such and such did do this for sure!" 3) You can't prove speculation for which there is circumstantial evidence (and little or no evidence to the contrary) as "unreliable" 4) Yes, I just noticed some grammer errors, will fix.
I therefore concluded that the person who wrote that sentence in regards to Dan Brown's book and the Holy Blood, Holy Grail probably hasn't even read either one, and at best has only read the Da Vinci Code, and I've changed the text to be more neutral in it's assessment of self-proclaimed speculation, that makes up the HbHg. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 07:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
