Nag Hammadi library - Revision history

Nick: Redirecting to Nag Hammadi Library

2021-04-06T22:58:20Z

Redirecting to Nag Hammadi Library

Show changes

Nick at 02:52, 27 December 2018

2018-12-27T02:52:33Z

Show changes

Nick: /* External links */

2017-12-30T14:21:55Z

External links

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 30 December 2017
Line 280:		Line 280:
	\|df =		\|df =
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>

			{{Donate}}

Nick: /* External links */

2017-12-23T10:29:03Z

External links

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 23 December 2017
Line 136:		Line 136:

	==External links==		==External links==
	{{commons\|Nag Hammadi texts}}		* [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nag_Hammadi_texts Nag Hammadi texts in Wikimedia Commons]
	* [http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/nha Nag Hammadi Archive] in the Claremont Colleges Digital Library		* [http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/nha Nag Hammadi Archive] in the Claremont Colleges Digital Library
	* [http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html The Nag Hammadi Library] – Complete texts at The Gnostic Society Library		* [http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html The Nag Hammadi Library] – Complete texts at The Gnostic Society Library

Nick at 10:08, 23 December 2017

2017-12-23T10:08:49Z

Show changes

Nick at 10:03, 23 December 2017

2017-12-23T10:03:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 23 December 2017
Line 105:		Line 105:
	Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the 2nd and 3rd century.<sup>[]</sup> Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by [[Irenaeus]] to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by [[Jerome]] to the 4th century. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division. Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work:		Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the 2nd and 3rd century.<sup>[]</sup> Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by [[Irenaeus]] to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by [[Jerome]] to the 4th century. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division. Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work:
	# The [[Gospel of Thomas]] is held by most to be the earliest of the "gnostic" gospels composed. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid 2nd century. The Gospel of Thomas, it is often claimed, has some gnostic elements but lacks the full gnostic cosmology. However, even the description of these elements as "gnostic" is based mainly upon the presupposition that the text as a whole is a "gnostic" gospel, and this idea itself is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.<sup>[]</sup> Some scholars including [[Nicholas Perrin]] argue that ''Thomas'' is dependent on the ''[[Diatessaron]]'', which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria. A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical [[Q document]] among other reasons.<sup>[]</sup>		# The [[Gospel of Thomas]] is held by most to be the earliest of the "gnostic" gospels composed. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid 2nd century. The Gospel of Thomas, it is often claimed, has some gnostic elements but lacks the full gnostic cosmology. However, even the description of these elements as "gnostic" is based mainly upon the presupposition that the text as a whole is a "gnostic" gospel, and this idea itself is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.<sup>[]</sup> Some scholars including [[Nicholas Perrin]] argue that ''Thomas'' is dependent on the ''[[Diatessaron]]'', which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria. A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical [[Q document]] among other reasons.<sup>[]</sup>
	# The [[Gospel of the Lord]], a gnostic but otherwise non-canonical text, can be dated approximately during the time of [[Marcion]] in the early 2nd century. The traditional view holds Marcion did not compose the gospel directly but, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion" <ref>Tertullian, ''Adversus Marcionem'' 4.6.2</ref> The traditional view and dating has continued to be affirmed by the mainstream of biblical scholars,<ref>{{cite book		# The [[Gospel of the Lord]], a gnostic but otherwise non-canonical text, can be dated approximately during the time of [[Marcion]] in the early 2nd century. The traditional view holds Marcion did not compose the gospel directly but, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion" <sup>[]</sup><ref>Tertullian, ''Adversus Marcionem'' 4.6.2</ref> The traditional view and dating has continued to be affirmed by the mainstream of biblical scholars,<sup>[]</sup><ref>{{cite book
	\| last = Ehrman		\| last = Ehrman
	\| first = Bart		\| first = Bart
Line 125:		Line 125:
	\| pages =		\| pages =
	\| doi =		\| doi =
	\| isbn = }}</ref> however, [[G. R. S. Mead]] '' His Gospel was presumably the collection of sayings in use among the Pauline churches of his day. Of course the patristic writers say that Marcion mutilated Luke's version.<ref>{{cite book		\| isbn = }}</ref> however, [[G. R. S. Mead]] '' His Gospel was presumably the collection of sayings in use among the Pauline churches of his day. Of course the patristic writers say that Marcion mutilated Luke's version.<sup>[]</sup><ref>{{cite book
	\| last = Knox		\| last = Knox
	\| first = John		\| first = John
Line 145:		Line 145:
	\| doi =		\| doi =
	\| isbn = }}</ref> have argued that Marcion's gospel predates the canonical Luke and was in use in Pauline churches.		\| isbn = }}</ref> have argued that Marcion's gospel predates the canonical Luke and was in use in Pauline churches.
	# The ''[[Gospel of Truth]]''<ref>''But the followers of Valentinus, putting away all fear, bring forward their own compositions and boast that they have more Gospels than really exist. Indeed their audacity has gone so far that they entitle their recent composition the Gospel of Truth'' Irenaeus, [[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis\|Adversus Haereses]] (3.11.9)[http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/irenaeus/03-ag-he.htm]</ref> and the teachings of the [[Pistis Sophia]] can be approximately dated to the early 2nd century as they were part of the original [[Valentinus (Gnostic)\|Valentinian]] school, though the gospel itself is 3rd century.		# The ''[[Gospel of Truth]]''<sup>[]</sup><ref>''But the followers of Valentinus, putting away all fear, bring forward their own compositions and boast that they have more Gospels than really exist. Indeed their audacity has gone so far that they entitle their recent composition the Gospel of Truth'' Irenaeus, [[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis\|Adversus Haereses]] (3.11.9)[http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/irenaeus/03-ag-he.htm]</ref> and the teachings of the [[Pistis Sophia]] can be approximately dated to the early 2nd century as they were part of the original [[Valentinus (Gnostic)\|Valentinian]] school, though the gospel itself is 3rd century.
	# Documents with a [[Sethian]] influence (like the [[Gospel of Judas]], or outright Sethian like [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians]] can be dated substantially later than 40 and substantially earlier than 250; most scholars giving them a 2nd-century date.<ref>[http://jdt.unl.edu/triadaft.htm Gnosticism and Platonism: The Platonizing Sethian texts from Nag Hammadi in their Relation to Later Platonic Literature] {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070622200655/http://jdt.unl.edu/triadaft.htm \|date=2007-06-22 }}, John D Turner, {{ISBN\|0-7914-1338-1}}.		# Documents with a [[Sethian]] influence (like the [[Gospel of Judas]], or outright Sethian like [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians]] can be dated substantially later than 40 and substantially earlier than 250; most scholars giving them a 2nd-century date.<sup>[]</sup><ref>[http://jdt.unl.edu/triadaft.htm Gnosticism and Platonism: The Platonizing Sethian texts from Nag Hammadi in their Relation to Later Platonic Literature] {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070622200655/http://jdt.unl.edu/triadaft.htm \|date=2007-06-22 }}, John D Turner, {{ISBN\|0-7914-1338-1}}.
	* [http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/lithist.html "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History,"] in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p55-86 {{ISBN\|0-913573-16-7}}		* [http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/lithist.html "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History,"] in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p55-86 {{ISBN\|0-913573-16-7}}
	* The [[National Geographic Society]] dates the gospel of Judas originally to mid 2nd century [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline.html] and the copy we possess 220-340 [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/auth_dating.html]</ref> More conservative scholars using the traditional dating method would argue in these cases for the early 3rd century. ~~{{Citation needed\|date=April 2009}}~~		* The [[National Geographic Society]] dates the gospel of Judas originally to mid 2nd century [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline.html] and the copy we possess 220-340 [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/auth_dating.html]</ref> More conservative scholars using the traditional dating method would argue in these cases for the early 3rd century.
	# Some gnostic gospels (for example [[Trimorphic Protennoia]]) make use of fully developed [[Neoplatonism]] and thus need to be dated after [[Plotinus]] in the 3rd century.<ref>''Plotinus, a native of Lycopolis in Egypt, who lived from 205 to 270 was the first systematic philosopher of [Neo-Platonism]'', {{cite encyclopedia		# Some gnostic gospels (for example [[Trimorphic Protennoia]]) make use of fully developed [[Neoplatonism]] and thus need to be dated after [[Plotinus]] in the 3rd century.<sup>[]</sup><ref>''Plotinus, a native of Lycopolis in Egypt, who lived from 205 to 270 was the first systematic philosopher of [Neo-Platonism]'', {{cite encyclopedia
	\| title = Neo-Platonism		\| title = Neo-Platonism
	\| encyclopedia = Catholic Encyclopedia		\| encyclopedia = Catholic Encyclopedia
	\| url = http://httpyavww.knight.org/cathen/10742b.htm		\| url = http://httpyavww.knight.org/cathen/10742b.htm
	\| accessdate = 12 April 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia		\| accessdate = 12 April 2009 }}</ref><sup>[]</sup><ref>{{cite encyclopedia
	\|title = Neoplatonism		\|title = Neoplatonism
	\|encyclopedia = 1911 Britannica		\|encyclopedia = 1911 Britannica
Line 180:		Line 180:

	==Notes and references==		==Notes and references==
	~~{{reflist}}~~

	==Further reading==		==Further reading==
	* {{cite book \| author=[[Bentley Layton\|Layton, Bentley]] \| title=The Gnostic Scriptures \| publisher=SCM Press \| year=1987 \| isbn=0-334-02022-0}} (526 pages)
	* {{cite book \| author=Markschies, Christoph (trans. John Bowden), \| title=Gnosis: An Introduction \| publisher=T & T Clark \| year=2000 \| isbn=0-567-08945-2}} (145 pages)
	* {{cite book \| author=[[Elaine Pagels\|Pagels, Elaine]] \| title=The Gnostic Gospels \| publisher= \| year=1979 \| isbn=0-679-72453-2}} (182 pages)
	* {{cite book \| author=[[James M. Robinson\|Robinson, James]] \| title=The Nag Hammadi Library in English \| publisher= \| year=1988 \| isbn=0-06-066934-9}} (549 pages)
	* Robinson, James M., 1979 "The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices," in ''Biblical Archaeology'' vol. 42, pp206–224.		* Robinson, James M., 1979 "The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices," in ''Biblical Archaeology'' vol. 42, pp206–224.
	* {{cite book \| author=[[Christopher M. Tuckett\|Tuckett, Christopher M.]] \| title=Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition: Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library \| publisher=T & T Clark \| year=1986 \| isbn=0-567-09364-6}} (206 pages)
	* {{cite book \| author=[[Edwin M. Yamauchi\|Yamauchi, Edwin M.]] \| title=Pre-Christian Gnosticism : A Survey of the Proposed Evidences \| publisher= \| year=1983 \| isbn=0-8010-9919-6}} (278 pages)
	* Yamauchi, Edwin M., "[https://www.scribd.com/doc/34318705/Pre-Christian-Gnosticism-in-the-Nag-Hammadi-Texts Pre-Christian Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi Texts?]," in ''Church History'' vol. 48, pp129–141.		* Yamauchi, Edwin M., "[https://www.scribd.com/doc/34318705/Pre-Christian-Gnosticism-in-the-Nag-Hammadi-Texts Pre-Christian Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi Texts?]," in ''Church History'' vol. 48, pp129–141.
	* Franzmann, Majella, 1996 ''Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings,'' T & T Clark International. {{ISBN\|056704470X}}. (293 pages) [http://humanities.curtin.edu.au/about/staff/index.cfm/M.Franzmann]		* Franzmann, Majella, 1996 ''Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings,'' T & T Clark International. {{ISBN\|056704470X}}. (293 pages) [http://humanities.curtin.edu.au/about/staff/index.cfm/M.Franzmann]

Nick at 10:00, 23 December 2017

2017-12-23T10:00:20Z

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 ==Dating==
-Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the 2nd and 3rd century.<sup>[]</sup> Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by [[Irenaeus]] to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by [[Jerome]] to the 4th century. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division. Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work {{Citation needed|date=April 2009}}:
+Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the 2nd and 3rd century.<sup>[]</sup> Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by [[Irenaeus]] to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by [[Jerome]] to the 4th century. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division. Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work:
-# The [[Gospel of Thomas]] is held by most to be the earliest of the "gnostic" gospels composed. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid 2nd century. The Gospel of Thomas, it is often claimed, has some gnostic elements but lacks the full gnostic cosmology. However, even the description of these elements as "gnostic" is based mainly upon the presupposition that the text as a whole is a "gnostic" gospel, and this idea itself is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.<ref>Davies, Stevan L., ''The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom'', 1983, p.21-22.</ref>  Some scholars including [[Nicholas Perrin]] argue that ''Thomas'' is dependent on the ''[[Diatessaron]]'', which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.<ref>Nicholas Perrin, "Thomas: The Fifth Gospel?," ''Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society'' 49 (March 2006): 66-/80</ref> A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical [[Q document]] among other reasons.<ref>{{Cite book
+# The [[Gospel of Thomas]] is held by most to be the earliest of the "gnostic" gospels composed. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid 2nd century. The Gospel of Thomas, it is often claimed, has some gnostic elements but lacks the full gnostic cosmology. However, even the description of these elements as "gnostic" is based mainly upon the presupposition that the text as a whole is a "gnostic" gospel, and this idea itself is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.<sup>[]</sup>  Some scholars including [[Nicholas Perrin]] argue that ''Thomas'' is dependent on the ''[[Diatessaron]]'', which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria. A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical [[Q document]] among other reasons.<sup>[]</sup>
 # The [[Gospel of the Lord]], a gnostic but otherwise non-canonical text, can be dated approximately during the time of [[Marcion]] in the early 2nd century. The traditional view holds Marcion did not compose the gospel directly but, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion" <ref>Tertullian, ''Adversus Marcionem'' 4.6.2</ref> The traditional view and dating has continued to be affirmed by the mainstream of biblical scholars,<ref>{{cite book
    | last = Ehrman
@@ Line 261: / Line 245: @@
    | doi =
    | isbn = }}</ref>

Nick at 09:56, 23 December 2017

2017-12-23T09:56:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, 23 December 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Gnosticism}}~~

	The '''Nag Hammadi library''' (also known as the "[[Chenoboskion]] Manuscripts,” or as the "Gnostic Gospels"<sup>[1]</sup>) is a collection of early Christian and [[Gnostic texts]] discovered near the [[Upper Egypt]]ian town of [[Nag Hammadi]] in 1945.		The '''Nag Hammadi library''' (also known as the "[[Chenoboskion]] Manuscripts,” or as the "Gnostic Gospels"<sup>[1]</sup>) is a collection of early Christian and [[Gnostic texts]] discovered near the [[Upper Egypt]]ian town of [[Nag Hammadi]] in 1945.
	Thirteen leather-bound [[vellum]] [[codex\|codices]] buried in a sealed jar were found by a local farmer named Muhammed al-Samman.<sup>[2]</sup> The writings in these codices comprised fifty-two mostly Gnostic [[treatise]]s, but they also include three works belonging to the ''[[Hermetica\|Corpus Hermeticum]]'' and a partial translation/alteration of [[Plato]]'s [[Republic (Plato)\|''Republic'']]. In his introduction to ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'', James Robinson suggests that these codices may have belonged to a nearby [[Saint Pachomius\|Pachomian]] monastery and were buried after [[Saint Athanasius]] condemned the use of [[Biblical canon\|non-canonical]] books in his [[Easter letter\|Festal Letter of 367 A.D]]. The discovery of these texts significantly influenced modern scholarship into early [[Christianity]] and [[Gnosticism#Christianity and Gnosticism\|Gnosticism]].		Thirteen leather-bound [[vellum]] [[codex\|codices]] buried in a sealed jar were found by a local farmer named Muhammed al-Samman.<sup>[2]</sup> The writings in these codices comprised fifty-two mostly Gnostic [[treatise]]s, but they also include three works belonging to the ''[[Hermetica\|Corpus Hermeticum]]'' and a partial translation/alteration of [[Plato]]'s [[Republic (Plato)\|''Republic'']]. In his introduction to ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'', James Robinson suggests that these codices may have belonged to a nearby [[Saint Pachomius\|Pachomian]] monastery and were buried after [[Saint Athanasius]] condemned the use of [[Biblical canon\|non-canonical]] books in his [[Easter letter\|Festal Letter of 367 A.D]]. The discovery of these texts significantly influenced modern scholarship into early [[Christianity]] and [[Gnosticism#Christianity and Gnosticism\|Gnosticism]].

Nick at 09:56, 23 December 2017

2017-12-23T09:56:16Z

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 At the same time, in the [[German Democratic Republic]], a group of scholars—including [[Alexander Böhlig]], Martin Krause and [[New Testament]] scholars [[Gesine Schenke]], [[Hans-Martin Schenke]] and [[Hans-Gebhard Bethge]]—were preparing the first German language translation of the find.  The last three scholars prepared a complete scholarly translation under the auspices of the [[Berlin]] [[Humboldt University]], which was published in 2001.
-The James M. Robinson translation was first published in 1977, with the name ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'', in collaboration between E.J. Brill and [[Harper & Row]].  The single-volume publication, according to Robinson, 'marked the end of one stage of Nag Hammadi scholarship and the beginning of another' (from the Preface to the third revised edition).  Paperback editions followed in 1981 and 1984, from E.J. Brill and Harper, respectively.  A third, completely revised, edition was published in 1988.  This marks the final stage in the gradual dispersal of gnostic texts into the wider public arena—the full complement of codices was finally available in unadulterated form to people around the world, in a variety of languages. A cross reference apparatus for Robinson's translation and the Biblical canon also exists.<ref>Clontz, T.E. and J., ''The Comprehensive New Testament'', Cornerstone Publications (2008), {{ISBN|978-0-9778737-1-5}}</ref>
+The James M. Robinson translation was first published in 1977, with the name ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'', in collaboration between E.J. Brill and [[Harper & Row]].  The single-volume publication, according to Robinson, 'marked the end of one stage of Nag Hammadi scholarship and the beginning of another' (from the Preface to the third revised edition).  Paperback editions followed in 1981 and 1984, from E.J. Brill and Harper, respectively.  A third, completely revised, edition was published in 1988.  This marks the final stage in the gradual dispersal of gnostic texts into the wider public arena—the full complement of codices was finally available in unadulterated form to people around the world, in a variety of languages. A cross reference apparatus for Robinson's translation and the Biblical canon also exists.<sup>[]</sup>
 Another English edition was published in 1987, by [[Yale]] scholar [[Bentley Layton]], called ''The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations'' (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1987). The volume included new translations from the Nag Hammadi Library, together with extracts from the [[Heresiology|heresiological]] writers, and other gnostic material.  It remains, along with ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English,'' one of the more accessible volumes of translations of the Nag Hammadi find. It includes extensive historical introductions to individual gnostic groups, notes on translation, annotations to the text, and the organization of tracts into clearly defined movements.
-Not all scholars agree that the entire library should be considered Gnostic. Paterson Brown has argued that the three Nag Hammadi Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Truth cannot be so labeled, since each, in his opinion, may explicitly affirm the basic reality and sanctity of incarnate life, which Gnosticism by definition considers illusory.<ref>Essay on the [http://www.metalog.org/ Ecumenical Coptic Project] website, from which the requisite Coptic font may be downloaded.  {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101227104649/http://www.metalog.org/ |date=December 27, 2010 }}</ref>
+Not all scholars agree that the entire library should be considered Gnostic. Paterson Brown has argued that the three Nag Hammadi Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Truth cannot be so labeled, since each, in his opinion, may explicitly affirm the basic reality and sanctity of incarnate life, which Gnosticism by definition considers illusory.<sup>[]</sup>
 ==Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi==
@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 ==Dating==
-Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the 2nd and 3rd century.<ref>{{cite book
+Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the 2nd and 3rd century.<sup>[]</sup> Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by [[Irenaeus]] to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by [[Jerome]] to the 4th century. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division. Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work {{Citation needed|date=April 2009}}:
-  | last = Bock
+# The [[Gospel of Thomas]] is held by most to be the earliest of the "gnostic" gospels composed. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid 2nd century. The Gospel of Thomas, it is often claimed, has some gnostic elements but lacks the full gnostic cosmology. However, even the description of these elements as "gnostic" is based mainly upon the presupposition that the text as a whole is a "gnostic" gospel, and this idea itself is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.<ref>Davies, Stevan L., ''The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom'', 1983, p.21-22.</ref>  Some scholars including [[Nicholas Perrin]] argue that ''Thomas'' is dependent on the ''[[Diatessaron]]'', which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.<ref>Nicholas Perrin, "Thomas: The Fifth Gospel?," ''Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society'' 49 (March 2006): 66-/80</ref> A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical [[Q document]] among other reasons.<ref>{{Cite book
 |contribution-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UiSFUJ6al1IC&pg=PA125&vq=%22it+may+well+date+from+the+first+century&dq=%22gospel+of+thomas%22+helmut&as_brr=3&sig=fcJmRiRQXLTb_0u6fAs7xDfDpMA
 |page=125
@@ Line 254: / Line 234: @@
 "The Nag Hammadi Library"
 (Markschies, ''Gnosis: An Introduction'', 49)

Nick: /* Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi */

2017-12-23T09:49:16Z

Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:49, 23 December 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:
	==Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi==		==Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi==
	(See: External links for complete list of manuscripts)		(See: External links for complete list of manuscripts)
	~~<!-- Deleted image removed:~~ [[~~Image:NagHammadi 1.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|right\|Nag Hammadi texts {{deletable~~ image~~-caption\|Saturday, 28 November 2015}}]] -->~~		[[image:Apocalypse of Peter.jpg\|thumbnail\|Apocalypse of Peter]]
	~~[[File~~:Apocalypse of Peter.jpg\|thumbnail\|Apocalypse of Peter]]
	*Codex I (also known as ''The [[Jung Codex]]''):		*Codex I (also known as ''The [[Jung Codex]]''):
	** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]''		** ''[[The Prayer of the Apostle Paul]]''