What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume
The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, edited by Marvin Meyer, is the most complete, up-to-date, one-volume, English-language edition of the renowned library of Gnostic manuscripts discovered in Egypt in 1945, which rivaled the Dead Sea Scrolls find in significance.
Paperback
Published January 1, 2018
1700 people are currently reading
2218 people want to read
About the author
Marvin W. Meyer
36 books57 followersMarvin Meyer is a scholar of religion and a tenured professor at Chapman University, in Orange, California.
He is the Griset Professor of Bible and Christian Studies at Chapman University and Director of the Albert Schweitzer Institute. He is also Director of the Coptic Magical Texts Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. Dr. Meyer is the author of numerous books and articles on Greco-Roman and Christian religions in antiquity and late antiquity, and on Albert Schweitzer's ethic of reverence for life. He has been interviewed on television programs that have aired on ABC, BBC, CNN, PBS, A&E, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the National Geographic Channel.
Professor Meyer is best known for his translations of the texts of documents associated with the ancient mystery religions, early Christian magic, and Gnostic texts, of which the most notable have been the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas. He is regarded as an authority on Gnosticism and has published many books on the subject.
Meyer died of melanoma on August 16, 2012.
He is the Griset Professor of Bible and Christian Studies at Chapman University and Director of the Albert Schweitzer Institute. He is also Director of the Coptic Magical Texts Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. Dr. Meyer is the author of numerous books and articles on Greco-Roman and Christian religions in antiquity and late antiquity, and on Albert Schweitzer's ethic of reverence for life. He has been interviewed on television programs that have aired on ABC, BBC, CNN, PBS, A&E, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the National Geographic Channel.
Professor Meyer is best known for his translations of the texts of documents associated with the ancient mystery religions, early Christian magic, and Gnostic texts, of which the most notable have been the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas. He is regarded as an authority on Gnosticism and has published many books on the subject.
Meyer died of melanoma on August 16, 2012.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
January 15, 2014
Have read and studied the Nag Hammadi Library for 20 years. The codices are beautifully translated with minimum commentaries.
It is The Bible of Gnostic Christianity. To be cherished and studied regularly.
It is The Bible of Gnostic Christianity. To be cherished and studied regularly.
February 4, 2013
Great resource of scriptures that never made it into today's versions of the Bible/Torah. It's not something you sit down and "read" in one sitting. It is a great book for cross-referencing with today's versions of the Bible if you are trying to figure out what was "actually" written or said!
March 18, 2014
It's all very interesting. The Gnostics are often closer to what feels true than more exoteric Christianity, but at the same time, some of it really does seem far-fetched, even if it is supposed to be "symbolic."
July 30, 2010
I can't say that I read the book in it's entirety but I did read the actual texts and a few of the explanatory passages that accompanied them.
Very eye opening. I can see why they were not included in the Bible.
Very eye opening. I can see why they were not included in the Bible.
January 16, 2013
I thought it was odd how these scriptures were found. They didn't stay hidden inside the caves, they were meant to be discover. I've been reading this on and off over the past couple of years and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
May 25, 2018
So after reading it on and off for years, today I completed the Nag Hammadi Scriptures. Not an easy read, but quite interesting at times. They are religious texts, usually based in early Christianity, written between the first and fourth century AD. Although included in them are texts from Plato, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Green and Egyptian mythology, and I would argue some ideas from Hinduism.
There seems to have been three main school of philosophic inquiry. One of based around Thomas, believed to be a twin brother of Jesus Christ. Another is "Sethian," people who believed Christ was the spiritual reincarnation go Adam and Eve's third son, Seth.
And the third was the Valentinian school. All of these are referred to a Gnostic, meaning they believed in seeking wisdom as a means of spiritual salvation. Also, meaning salvation can come from within, without the intercession of a church. These texts were condemned by the Catholic church, and the followers of the philosophies prosecuted for their beliefs
There seems to have been three main school of philosophic inquiry. One of based around Thomas, believed to be a twin brother of Jesus Christ. Another is "Sethian," people who believed Christ was the spiritual reincarnation go Adam and Eve's third son, Seth.
And the third was the Valentinian school. All of these are referred to a Gnostic, meaning they believed in seeking wisdom as a means of spiritual salvation. Also, meaning salvation can come from within, without the intercession of a church. These texts were condemned by the Catholic church, and the followers of the philosophies prosecuted for their beliefs
January 19, 2015
Why does a person read The Nag Hammadi Library? One can feel the fire of change, almost a revolutionary knife edge that since the church has dulled into the most backward reactionary worship of crucified god.... in the Testimony of Truth stands, "For no one who is under the Law will be able to look up to the truth, for they will not be able to serve two masters. For the defilement of the Law is manifest; but undefilement belongs to the light."
February 12, 2009
Typically when one does any scholarship, he or she uses source material relatively close to the font of that source. In this particular case, all of these books or letters were written in the second century. In addition, there is not any record that any of the writers of the epistles actually knew Jesus. We have names which imply that actual apostles wrote them, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support this and in fact, considerable evidence against it. In addition, these texts were found buried in Egypt. While it is true that there was a large contingent of Jews in Alexandria, there is no evidence to support that any of this was even remotely mainstream, even in Egypt, much less in Israel before or after the dispersion.
The worst criticism of Gnosticism which one can bring is exactly what another review lauds, that there are hierarchies of knowledge of God. These occur because one comes to "experience" God inwardly in a way in which others, not yet as “experienced,” cannot know. In this way, Gnosticism is appealing to people who prefer, say Scientology to Christianity. The only thing missing is the language of being clear.
Does Gnosticism make its version of Christianity more appealing? I think it does simply because it promotes inner spiritual awareness and does away with a lot of silly rules that we encounter elsewhere such as in Romans 13: 8-9. However the greatest criticism of Gnosticism is this: Gnosticism does away with Jesus Christ. No more virgin birth, no more women at the tomb, no more visiting the underworld and no more ascension to heaven. The good part is that it cuts down on one’s obligations: your truth remains what you experience, what you learn about God inside yourself. It’s an old song in a different guise. Secular humanism didn’t invent itself last century.
It is unfortunate that Gnostic writings are inconsistent with the Biblical scheme of things which founds itself directly on Christ’s teachings of the first century. Despite what one hears from itinerant atheists posing as college professors, there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that Biblical accounts are not so. This, of course, does not deny that there are arguments about certain passages of Biblical scripture. However, not one of these arguments does away with a single message of Christ as the one and only son of God.
Secularists have been pounding on these Gnostic writings for years, maintaining that there was a secret collaboration from the church to suppress the truth. Da Vinci Code anyone? I fully understand why one would enjoy getting rid of Jesus as the one and only son of God: that would make religion much freer and open to interpretation. Thus God becomes somewhat of a bumbling idiot presented in so many secular views of this age. The one problem of course, is that these views aren’t new. They always show up with a new name, each maintaining themselves to be correct.
It is true that these books were deliberately not included when the Bible was compiled, chiefly by Jerome in 405 and you can read why if you want to understand. Its compilation and translation to the Latin Vulgate is not without issue, but that is certainly a larger topic; his dismissal of the so-called Gnostic Gospels is not an effort of subterfuge, but one of consistency and sense. Far from agreeing with the canon of our New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels are inconsistent with the Old Testament also.
Lastly, these Gnostic texts should be read. Each person interested should not read a book about these books, but read the original text, just as he or she should read the Bible as we know it, either Catholic or Protestant versions. To do anything else is to give disservice to the fundamental spiritual truths of him or herself. The truth of Jesus Christ is about spiritual life, one which rises above our natural inclinations. This requires considerable humility. I am unable to do that alone.
On the other hand, if you have no desire to do anything other than dream, you can follow Gnostic texts as gospel. Gnosticism costs a little more these days but what’s spiritual clarity worth on the open market? Christ gives it to you for free, but it requires personal change. If paying for spiritual clarity is more your style, enjoy your trance-like states, believe the Gnostic gospels and please say hello to L. Ron Hubbard for me.
The worst criticism of Gnosticism which one can bring is exactly what another review lauds, that there are hierarchies of knowledge of God. These occur because one comes to "experience" God inwardly in a way in which others, not yet as “experienced,” cannot know. In this way, Gnosticism is appealing to people who prefer, say Scientology to Christianity. The only thing missing is the language of being clear.
Does Gnosticism make its version of Christianity more appealing? I think it does simply because it promotes inner spiritual awareness and does away with a lot of silly rules that we encounter elsewhere such as in Romans 13: 8-9. However the greatest criticism of Gnosticism is this: Gnosticism does away with Jesus Christ. No more virgin birth, no more women at the tomb, no more visiting the underworld and no more ascension to heaven. The good part is that it cuts down on one’s obligations: your truth remains what you experience, what you learn about God inside yourself. It’s an old song in a different guise. Secular humanism didn’t invent itself last century.
It is unfortunate that Gnostic writings are inconsistent with the Biblical scheme of things which founds itself directly on Christ’s teachings of the first century. Despite what one hears from itinerant atheists posing as college professors, there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that Biblical accounts are not so. This, of course, does not deny that there are arguments about certain passages of Biblical scripture. However, not one of these arguments does away with a single message of Christ as the one and only son of God.
Secularists have been pounding on these Gnostic writings for years, maintaining that there was a secret collaboration from the church to suppress the truth. Da Vinci Code anyone? I fully understand why one would enjoy getting rid of Jesus as the one and only son of God: that would make religion much freer and open to interpretation. Thus God becomes somewhat of a bumbling idiot presented in so many secular views of this age. The one problem of course, is that these views aren’t new. They always show up with a new name, each maintaining themselves to be correct.
It is true that these books were deliberately not included when the Bible was compiled, chiefly by Jerome in 405 and you can read why if you want to understand. Its compilation and translation to the Latin Vulgate is not without issue, but that is certainly a larger topic; his dismissal of the so-called Gnostic Gospels is not an effort of subterfuge, but one of consistency and sense. Far from agreeing with the canon of our New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels are inconsistent with the Old Testament also.
Lastly, these Gnostic texts should be read. Each person interested should not read a book about these books, but read the original text, just as he or she should read the Bible as we know it, either Catholic or Protestant versions. To do anything else is to give disservice to the fundamental spiritual truths of him or herself. The truth of Jesus Christ is about spiritual life, one which rises above our natural inclinations. This requires considerable humility. I am unable to do that alone.
On the other hand, if you have no desire to do anything other than dream, you can follow Gnostic texts as gospel. Gnosticism costs a little more these days but what’s spiritual clarity worth on the open market? Christ gives it to you for free, but it requires personal change. If paying for spiritual clarity is more your style, enjoy your trance-like states, believe the Gnostic gospels and please say hello to L. Ron Hubbard for me.
Want to read
September 19, 2012"When I came down, no one saw me, for I kept changing my forms on high, transforming from shape to shape, so when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. I passed by them quietly. I saw their realms, but I was not afraid or ashamed, because I was pure. I was speaking with them and mingling with them, through those who are mine" (480).
November 16, 2020
What a mixed bag of curiosities is exhibited here. A lot of it is mad and weird and one marvels at the complexity of the fantasy world created by the authors. And what else can one call a belief system where human beings are produced by demons copulating with the wind (from the Paraphrase of Shem) or where the world is brought into being by the evil Gnostic Demiurge Yaldabaoth, Son of Sophia (from the Secret Book according to John), or where reality is comprised of a weird and convoluted system of bizarre theoretical complexity, with no discernible grounding in anything I can recognise as truth or reality (the Tripartate Tractates).
Some of this is tedious and unenlightening, but not all of it. Here and there one finds intriguing curiosities. The Acts of Peter are vile – the apostle heals his paralysed daughter and then immediately un-heals her because he airily informs the audience that if she’s healed it will only encourage lustful thoughts in her would be husband (she is ten years old). The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a lot better: and there is none of that unscriptural later nonsense from the early church fathers that she was a prostitute – a clear attempt by misogynists to subvert an early feminist icon. Here, Peter is a fool who cannot see beyond Mary’s gender – which she explains is a superficial bodily difference destined to pass away. And she also tells him there is no such thing as sin; all sin is merely a turning away from divine truth. This all sounds very woke and liberal - how modern Anglicans must wish this one got into the official canon of scripture!.
Of course, the one thing these texts all have in common is that they DIDN’T make it into canon. Their existence, and extraordinary rediscovery, subverts the notion that there was ever only one kind of way of Christian understanding and belief in the first few centuries of our era. None of this will shake the beliefs of monolithic Christians, who would simply assert that the fact that the “official” version of Christianity “won” is in itself proof that God was looking after his Church all along. There will be others, like me, who cannot sign up to any version of “official” Christianity but who nevertheless feel that some responses to the mysterious figure of Jesus are worth thinking about. For those in this category, there are some thought provoking plums amidst the unappetising or downright inedible.
My favourite is the Gospel of Judas. (Years ago, an old school friend – now the British Ambassador to Spain – once played me a song called “Stand Up for Judas” when we were both at university, and I still recall the fascinating discussion which ensued). Here, Judas is the only one who truly understands what Jesus is on about. And unlike everything in the official canon, there is much joyful laughter. (I was never convinced by the desperate attempt of an evangelical school chaplain to persuade me that the Jesus of the official gospels had a sense of humour, and in the Old Testament laughter is only ever recorded as something mocking and demonic, as when Sarah laughs to mock the angel who tells her she will conceive). The Gospel of Judas ends thus:
“Jesus says to Judas, “Look…the star that leads the way is your star”….Judas beholds the light, and enters it….a voice says…..” but there the text breaks off – the ending, alas, has been lost, just as when daylight breaks, starlight faintly glimmers, and is gone.
Some of this is tedious and unenlightening, but not all of it. Here and there one finds intriguing curiosities. The Acts of Peter are vile – the apostle heals his paralysed daughter and then immediately un-heals her because he airily informs the audience that if she’s healed it will only encourage lustful thoughts in her would be husband (she is ten years old). The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a lot better: and there is none of that unscriptural later nonsense from the early church fathers that she was a prostitute – a clear attempt by misogynists to subvert an early feminist icon. Here, Peter is a fool who cannot see beyond Mary’s gender – which she explains is a superficial bodily difference destined to pass away. And she also tells him there is no such thing as sin; all sin is merely a turning away from divine truth. This all sounds very woke and liberal - how modern Anglicans must wish this one got into the official canon of scripture!.
Of course, the one thing these texts all have in common is that they DIDN’T make it into canon. Their existence, and extraordinary rediscovery, subverts the notion that there was ever only one kind of way of Christian understanding and belief in the first few centuries of our era. None of this will shake the beliefs of monolithic Christians, who would simply assert that the fact that the “official” version of Christianity “won” is in itself proof that God was looking after his Church all along. There will be others, like me, who cannot sign up to any version of “official” Christianity but who nevertheless feel that some responses to the mysterious figure of Jesus are worth thinking about. For those in this category, there are some thought provoking plums amidst the unappetising or downright inedible.
My favourite is the Gospel of Judas. (Years ago, an old school friend – now the British Ambassador to Spain – once played me a song called “Stand Up for Judas” when we were both at university, and I still recall the fascinating discussion which ensued). Here, Judas is the only one who truly understands what Jesus is on about. And unlike everything in the official canon, there is much joyful laughter. (I was never convinced by the desperate attempt of an evangelical school chaplain to persuade me that the Jesus of the official gospels had a sense of humour, and in the Old Testament laughter is only ever recorded as something mocking and demonic, as when Sarah laughs to mock the angel who tells her she will conceive). The Gospel of Judas ends thus:
“Jesus says to Judas, “Look…the star that leads the way is your star”….Judas beholds the light, and enters it….a voice says…..” but there the text breaks off – the ending, alas, has been lost, just as when daylight breaks, starlight faintly glimmers, and is gone.
December 6, 2016
If you like the convoluted, mystical and almost impenetrable side of early Christian religion, this is for you, as it is for me. I haven't absorbed all of it by any means, but it reflects the most interior workings of the human mind: the emotional aspect of life subjected to the brutality of reason in an effort to Make Sense of It All. These Gnostic studies and ragtags were unearthed in 1945, roughly 1600 years after being condemned and the very ideas virtually annihilated by the orthodox Church. What a time that must have been, and what a near two-millennium shame that these exercises to wrench meaning from a resistant universe should have been lost so long.
March 2, 2021
This is jaw-dropping Theology! These were the books the Church decided NOT to include in the Bible. For some, like Mary Magdelene, Peter's Apocalypse and Thomas' Faith, and, yes, Judas, too, it is a great loss to us. But for others, the Church elders may have been correct. With a preface from a religious scholar, Elaine Pagels, these books are a dip into the world of the Essene culture, and can provide a clear preview of Gnosticism. Christ is not just Matthew, Mark Luke and John. O no, like any complex figure, he has been seen through many eyes.
October 30, 2020
A treasure of fourth-century texts, the manuscripts are the scriptures of the ancient mystical tradition commonly called Gnosticism, from the Greek gnosis, that is, secret knowledge. These ancient manuscripts challenge everything we thought we knew about the early Christian church, ancient Judaism and Greco-Roman religions.
These texts invite us to reconsider the nature of our religious and philosophical heritage, the development of Christianity and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, and the enduring questions raised by religious and philosophical inquiry.
These texts invite us to reconsider the nature of our religious and philosophical heritage, the development of Christianity and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, and the enduring questions raised by religious and philosophical inquiry.
August 8, 2019
Enlightening
Organized nicely and I appreciated the summaries and history if the texts. This was very enlightening and opened my eyes to new discoveries.
Organized nicely and I appreciated the summaries and history if the texts. This was very enlightening and opened my eyes to new discoveries.
June 18, 2025
from the story of jesus preferring mary to all his dicisples to judas being asked to betray jesus by his twin brother jesus himself ... from the stories of the nameless one mating with sophia and creating her to the story of the creation myth of yaldaboath who was created without a male by sophia making her fall from grace then all the stories of the sons of yaldaboath elohim jah jehovah allah basically all the great gods of the abrahamic religions must read for those real searchers of knowledge and wisdom
January 26, 2025
And if you’re going to call me a Christian, make sure you put “Sethian Gnostic” in front of it 😌
No notes other than I recommend reading the epilogue sections first. The epilogue details the differences between the gnostic schools of thought, orienting the beliefs underpinning the various texts and their groupings.
No notes other than I recommend reading the epilogue sections first. The epilogue details the differences between the gnostic schools of thought, orienting the beliefs underpinning the various texts and their groupings.
February 9, 2021
It was interesting to learn through primary texts about the variety of approaches to making sense of the event of Jesus (or, projecting a pre-existing philosophical system onto Jesus.) I went into the Nag Hammadi Scriptures with an open mind, somewhat prepared to be like "the Church shut out all of these diverse interpretations." I also appreciate and enjoy the impulse to elaborate/project a lot onto Biblical figures that are just barely touched on, such as Seth and Enoch. However, these are straight up BONKERS. What is still missing for me is a sense of how many followers these schools had. They were perceived as enough of a threat for the early Christian fathers to feel the need to distinguish themselves, but how many people believed and followed these schools? Also, since I am not a scholar on Gnosticism I really could have done with a sample rather than the entire collection. I could have learned as much from 200 pages of nonsense rather than 844, but I appreciate that this collection exists for other people.
November 4, 2022
Easily the most difficult book I've ever tried to read. Some/most of the books are fragmentary with missing excerpts, a lot of the original scripture is delivered without much background context, but worst of all, in this edition the commentaries and footnotes were just way too distracting. It's like trying to read a Bible with missing/torn pages, and someone scribbling all their own personal notes all over the place. "Noisy" is the best word I can think of. I agree commentaries are definitely necessary for this type of book but for anyone who is trying to catch the spirit of the Word this is almost impossible. This edition is only useful for big brain University level analytical study, not so much for personal meditation and contemplation.
That being said, sometimes the original spirit will shine through all the muddle and really hits strong, so I don't really feel like I wasted my time plowing my way through this ancient tome. We're lucky this thing even exists in the first place, given that it was accidentally discovered less than 100 years ago.
That being said, sometimes the original spirit will shine through all the muddle and really hits strong, so I don't really feel like I wasted my time plowing my way through this ancient tome. We're lucky this thing even exists in the first place, given that it was accidentally discovered less than 100 years ago.
February 12, 2023
I ended up not enjoying this as much as I expected to. While it is doubtless that Gnostic beliefs are very cool, ultimately I am just too much of a casual to appreciate the minute differences in the creation myths that appear in the various tracts that occur herein. By the end I was just reading the introductory essays and skimming the actual text from the Nag Hammadi codices.
The introductions to each text were generally decent and the essays at the end discussing the various strands of religious thought contained in these scriptures were very good.
Perhaps the most interesting takeaway was that Sophia, creator of the demiurge and the root cause of our accursed mortal realm in both the Sethian and Valentinian traditions, has her roots in the Old Testament. She appears as personified wisdom in various books and psalms. I believe this associated Gnostic cosmogony predates Christianity and was a strand of Jewish thought. With the arrival of Jesus he could then be tacked on to the philosophy to make it a little more hopeful.
The introductions to each text were generally decent and the essays at the end discussing the various strands of religious thought contained in these scriptures were very good.
Perhaps the most interesting takeaway was that Sophia, creator of the demiurge and the root cause of our accursed mortal realm in both the Sethian and Valentinian traditions, has her roots in the Old Testament. She appears as personified wisdom in various books and psalms. I believe this associated Gnostic cosmogony predates Christianity and was a strand of Jewish thought. With the arrival of Jesus he could then be tacked on to the philosophy to make it a little more hopeful.
May 7, 2009
While listening to the preaching of Pastor David Jeremiah, he mentioned that while the Apocrypha is not part of the canonical books of the bible it is nonetheless accurate and historical. I got really interested to find out which other books did not make it to the bible. So I did a research on these books which were read and studied by early Christians. Then one Saturday while the kids and I were in our local library I chance upon this book called "The Nag Hammadi Scriptures". This book turned out to be a collection of ancient gospels around 50 texts which were read as sacred literature. It was an interesting since it gives me a glimpse of what other Christians read during the early days of Christianity. It is not a book for everybody since some of them were banned by the church fathers and bishops of old.
June 29, 2021
What a trip. Starts off fairly interesting. Quickly gets batshit. Then you get acclimated and it’s pretty boring for a few hundred pages. Then it gets interesting again. Then you achieve gnosis and beget the unbegotten Barbelo and all her many-fingered luminaries. Then it gets boring again.
If, by chance, you’d rather read ABOUT gnosticism instead of the primary texts, you could do a lot worse than read the few dozen introductions to the individual works and skip the primary texts. It’s not like the experts have that firm an idea on what it’s all about anyway.
If, by chance, you’d rather read ABOUT gnosticism instead of the primary texts, you could do a lot worse than read the few dozen introductions to the individual works and skip the primary texts. It’s not like the experts have that firm an idea on what it’s all about anyway.
November 14, 2010
Reading the Magdalene Line by Kathleen McGowan piqued my interest in finding out more about Mary Magdalene (and the role of women in religion)... and other aspects of the history of early Christianity.
Read
March 27, 2008The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in Egypt in 1945. The Gnostic Gospels had been destroyed, but were found in Nag Hammadi.
Read
April 15, 2010nonfiction,theology
Read
September 23, 2010"Nag Hammadi Scriptures, The: The International Edition by Marvin Meyer (2007)"
September 5, 2011
Want one place to go to understand the original Gnostic Writings? This is it.
Read
April 10, 2025It’s a rollercoaster between going ‘oh, this makes sense’ and ‘oh these are the writings of an insane person’.
All in all it’s a very fun read if you’re like me and want more stories to read about The Bible.
All in all it’s a very fun read if you’re like me and want more stories to read about The Bible.
June 29, 2025
This is not an easy to read or follow book. It doesn't include the actual scriptures. It's a collection of essays about the scriptures and the interpretations by scholars.
July 24, 2025
really interesting reads to understand early Christian sects and allows the reader to form a multitude of new opinions on Christian theology.
October 1, 2021
Strongly Anti Christian
This is compiled by folks who seek to argue that Christianity (all religion, for that matter) is a human construction and that God's divine hand plays no role in religious doctrine or even theology. It is ironic how often people of no faith deliberately seek out degrees in theology... but that is a separate matter.
The problem with this compiled edition is twofold. First, the editorial interpretation arbitrarily assumes the equal credibility of these documents on par with the Biblical canon, and indeed, mockingly scoffs at dissenting views as if they were ignorant and prejudiced (which is clearly a case of projection). To illustrate my thought here, we might consider what it would be like if historians 2000 years in the future uncovered a collection of National Inquirer newspapers, and then made the claim that they reflected an equally valid alternative history of our day and age. That would be problematic by itself, but the error would be made worse if those same historians arbitrarily dismissed other documents that showed the National Inquirer to be a sensationalist newspaper with no intent to be historically accurate. If those future historians made an argument that the critics of the Inquirer were actually motivated by jealousy and political expediency, then we (in the present) would think that they (historians of the future) had their own ideological agenda, and were as equally unconcerned about the true state of affairs as the disgraced sources they claim to promote.
And that is precisely what our editors have done with the Gnostic writings. They were recognized at the time as spurious works that were written with the singular purpose of enhancing the authority of particular religious figures... they were the definition of heretical. All the Church fathers, and the vast majority of the faithful recognized it at the time. Just because something is old, does not mean it is legitimate (any more than the National Inquirer would be 2000 years from now.). Nevertheless, with very little explanation beyond the assertion of contemporary prejudice, the editors of this volume dismiss all contemporary criticisms of these Gnostic writings as unfounded.
The introductions to the book and each selection are steeped with pretentiousness, but it does not take layman more than a casual g lan e to see why these writings were recognized at the time as spurious... They are inconsistent in logic, they clearly
emphasize secrecy as a means of justifying the author's authority, and they bear very little reflection of other Jewish writings. They clearly do not come from the same source of divine inspiration.
Now... If you do not believe in the existence of divine inspiration, then none of these criticisms matter to you, which I can easily conclude that the editors are practical atheists.
The second problem with this collection is that the editors freely libellous the actual translation with ease, rendering the final product mostly useless... even as a window into the minds of Gnostic heretics from the time of the early church. This would be ironic, except that it is actually quite consistent for the editors. The editors keep pretending that there is no definition of heresy, except as a personal pronouncement against "the other". As a matter of fact, the Church Fathers used a very specific definition of heresy as " something new". In other words, Jesus revealed the deposit of faith to the infant church and relied on the Holy Spirit to preserve and maintain that deposit as the Church gradually grew into needing greater understanding. If someone adds something new to that depositor faith, then they are adding human construction... Human errors... into the faith. When those errors are identified they are called heresies. The Gnostic writings are heretical for this reason.
I say it is ironic that the editors were so free to add their ideological span in the process of translating these documents into "modern language" because such additions are the definition of heresy itself... they are adding something new to the Gnostic writings, which the Gnostic writers would have been quite surprised by (had they seen the current versions in their own times). At the same time, I acknowledge the consistency of the editors because they clear!y do not believe (or care) about the original intent or meaning of these writings anymore than they care about understanding the actual views of the early church during this time period. They dismiss the intentions of the Gnostic writers with the same indifference that they show to the Church Fathers who obviously condemned the heretical works.
This edition is flawed in two ways. The editorial tone is anachronistic and the translation itself is flawed. If you are looking for primary source material for understanding the Gnostic movement, or other heresies, then look elsewhere... Preferably in a much older translation.
This is compiled by folks who seek to argue that Christianity (all religion, for that matter) is a human construction and that God's divine hand plays no role in religious doctrine or even theology. It is ironic how often people of no faith deliberately seek out degrees in theology... but that is a separate matter.
The problem with this compiled edition is twofold. First, the editorial interpretation arbitrarily assumes the equal credibility of these documents on par with the Biblical canon, and indeed, mockingly scoffs at dissenting views as if they were ignorant and prejudiced (which is clearly a case of projection). To illustrate my thought here, we might consider what it would be like if historians 2000 years in the future uncovered a collection of National Inquirer newspapers, and then made the claim that they reflected an equally valid alternative history of our day and age. That would be problematic by itself, but the error would be made worse if those same historians arbitrarily dismissed other documents that showed the National Inquirer to be a sensationalist newspaper with no intent to be historically accurate. If those future historians made an argument that the critics of the Inquirer were actually motivated by jealousy and political expediency, then we (in the present) would think that they (historians of the future) had their own ideological agenda, and were as equally unconcerned about the true state of affairs as the disgraced sources they claim to promote.
And that is precisely what our editors have done with the Gnostic writings. They were recognized at the time as spurious works that were written with the singular purpose of enhancing the authority of particular religious figures... they were the definition of heretical. All the Church fathers, and the vast majority of the faithful recognized it at the time. Just because something is old, does not mean it is legitimate (any more than the National Inquirer would be 2000 years from now.). Nevertheless, with very little explanation beyond the assertion of contemporary prejudice, the editors of this volume dismiss all contemporary criticisms of these Gnostic writings as unfounded.
The introductions to the book and each selection are steeped with pretentiousness, but it does not take layman more than a casual g lan e to see why these writings were recognized at the time as spurious... They are inconsistent in logic, they clearly
emphasize secrecy as a means of justifying the author's authority, and they bear very little reflection of other Jewish writings. They clearly do not come from the same source of divine inspiration.
Now... If you do not believe in the existence of divine inspiration, then none of these criticisms matter to you, which I can easily conclude that the editors are practical atheists.
The second problem with this collection is that the editors freely libellous the actual translation with ease, rendering the final product mostly useless... even as a window into the minds of Gnostic heretics from the time of the early church. This would be ironic, except that it is actually quite consistent for the editors. The editors keep pretending that there is no definition of heresy, except as a personal pronouncement against "the other". As a matter of fact, the Church Fathers used a very specific definition of heresy as " something new". In other words, Jesus revealed the deposit of faith to the infant church and relied on the Holy Spirit to preserve and maintain that deposit as the Church gradually grew into needing greater understanding. If someone adds something new to that depositor faith, then they are adding human construction... Human errors... into the faith. When those errors are identified they are called heresies. The Gnostic writings are heretical for this reason.
I say it is ironic that the editors were so free to add their ideological span in the process of translating these documents into "modern language" because such additions are the definition of heresy itself... they are adding something new to the Gnostic writings, which the Gnostic writers would have been quite surprised by (had they seen the current versions in their own times). At the same time, I acknowledge the consistency of the editors because they clear!y do not believe (or care) about the original intent or meaning of these writings anymore than they care about understanding the actual views of the early church during this time period. They dismiss the intentions of the Gnostic writers with the same indifference that they show to the Church Fathers who obviously condemned the heretical works.
This edition is flawed in two ways. The editorial tone is anachronistic and the translation itself is flawed. If you are looking for primary source material for understanding the Gnostic movement, or other heresies, then look elsewhere... Preferably in a much older translation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews