Talk:Gnostic Gospels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gnostic Gospels article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. "
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)

[edit] 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. jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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? jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 11:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) jbolden1517Talk 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.
jbolden1517Talk 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)

[edit] 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
Discussion Process

jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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 jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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)

[edit] 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? jbolden1517Talk 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). jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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)


[edit] 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. jbolden1517Talk 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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 jbolden1517Talk 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

jbolden1517Talk 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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. jbolden1517Talk 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. jbolden1517Talk 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? jbolden1517Talk 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)