5 Nights: Sinful Delights Boxed Set eE with King s basicspecially as she "DEMONSTRATES SCHOLARS CAN REIFY "GNOSTICISM WHEN THEY APPROACH " WHEN THEY APPROACH scholars can reify gnosticism when they approach texts However I cannot follow King to all of her conclusions The Seventh Witch especially because I find her historical methodology untenable In my opinion one of the benefits of the Nag Hammadi texts is that it allows us to better read these writings on their own terms However contra King it seems I also believe we should read thearly Christian polemicists her phrase on their own terms Though we may not agree with And the Miss Ran Away with the Rake everything they wrote orven all of their strategies I think the Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama's Dream of the Socialist States of America early Fathers sought toxamine their opponents on their own terms without lumping them all together though of course in so far as these opponents shared common traits they could be lumped together It is appropriate for historians to ask What if the Fathers who despite differences were unanimous in their judgment on these gnostic texts were right I m a Christian and therefore I am sympathetic to some of the positions of the polemicists I m not at all convinced that s a bad thing so long as I am aware of how this colors my reading of the The Pocket Wife early texts And I don t think it prevents me from making sound historical arguments and judgments I want King to have the same intellectual honesty in her own work regarding her own commitments This is sort of wonderful King follows the ancient polemical and modern scholarly views of Gnosticism down through the ages Her main point is that the late 19tharly 20th century scholars for the most part accepted and reinforced the views of the The Color of Our Sky early church polemicists Irenaeus Tertulliantc She gives detailed xample after detailed xample We look at the work of Harnack Reitzenstein Bousset Bultmann Bauer Jonas and others She then undertakes a review of shifting scholarly positions after the astonishing discovery in 1945 of a trove of ancient mostly Gnostic manuscripts near the Upper Egypt village of Nag Hammadi These manuscripts written in Coptic were hidden in a jar under the sand and Obsession estimated to be 1600 years old They threw much light on the formation of thearly church and raised many uestions Does King belabor her point a bit Yes she is nothing if not a scholar but it s such a fascinating overview reuiring only minimal googling for the general reader that one is borne along nicely Her writing is clear and free of jargon save for the first chapter or so where she pays the reuisite obeisance to scholarly argot Though she isn t the writer her peer Elaine Pagels is King nevertheless does a rock solid job She wants to follow the seuence of ideas and compare and contrast them as she goes along Just the sort of treatment I was looking for Thorough and admirable. Must first disentangle modern historiography from the Christian discourse of orthodoxy and heresy that has pervaded and distorted the sto. Don t let the number of pages fool you a third of it is bibliography and footnotes haha suckers and the other two thirds is about well
the title pretty much spells for you literally Karen King has this opus dealt a death blow historic takes on the gnostic heresy Thanks in large part to the Nag Hammadi find over seven decades ago the models of gnostic belief and genealogy developed over the past 1700 years have to be discarded They have developed from the anti heresy campaigns of several church fathers and have been in Cabaret: A Roman Riddle essence tweaked and updated by philologists historians of religion and like scholars But thesefforts were struggles in the dark The reality of the recent finds of gnostic literature make it clear that there were many different currents in arly Christian thought The ffort to define Christian orthodoxy in part to accommodate the needs of the now Christian Roman Empire produced a polemic literature that only now can be understood in relation to those whose views were different King calls for a new approach to Christian history that xplores its diversity rather than assuming a uniform beginning Very academic Very very academic Yet at the same time helped me understand that the popular presentations of gnosticism and some of the reasons I became attracted to ittend to be by people with agendas having little to do with the actual historic records Gnosticism doesn t redeem Christianity but it doesn t refute Well I read the book and can say that I still don t know what Gnosticism is but I sure know what it is not A good review of what scholars have debated in terms of the religious climate of the first couple centuries "Of The Common Era "the common ra does a great job of pointing out the ways that the language of heresy and orthodoxy color our understanding of the texts that we call gnostic In some ways it has to open up the uestion of what it is that we call christian during that period as well So yeah when you hear someone use the term gnosticism typically what they are doing is relating to a power structure in one way or another Despite the seemingly simplistic title this is not All Roads Lead Home exactly a primer on the subject but it does serve as a useful introduction nevertheless Kingssentially spends the book denoting the trouble with defining the term gnosticism and then covering the history of its definitionGnosticism in its arliest variety was simply heresy If something did not fit into what became Christian orthodoxy arly writers termed it gnostic or often heretical because the gnostic term itself didn t really come to be until the Middle Ages and ven then regular usage only really comes into being much laterAttempts to define and determine the or. A distinctive Christian heresy A competitor of burgeoning Christianity A pre Christian folk religion traceable to Oriental syncretism How. Igins of gnosticism begin to make some real headway under Adolf von Harnack who tied it to the hellenization of Judaism and Christianity The History
WHAT THE TITLE PRETTY MUCH SPELLS
of religions schoolReligions school not uite finding ways to tie it to ancient Eastern philosophies in "for xample Iran Still other scholars tied it into pre Christian Jewish ideas In general it would "example Iran Still other scholars tied it into pre Christian Jewish ideas In general it would The Mephisto Threat (Paul Tallis easiest just to say that gnosticism is syncreticBut this still begs the uestion of what gnosticism is King spends the rest of the book looking at various definitions and then also at primary documents from the gnostics themselves One trick with regard to discussing gnosticism has been that has largely been defined by itsnemies But when we look at so called gnostic documents suddenly there is not as much unity of belief and heresies are not the same across the board One could asily point to various origins or create various definitions depending on the document xamined For this reason the term gnosticism may better be simply jettisoned As King notes arly Christian teachings were in flux and one can t really say that there was a uniform alternative The title of this book What is Gnosticism is a trick uestion Gnosticism doesn t xist other than as a concept that was reified as scholars projected a working construct back onto the ancient world In short Gnosticism is a modern and acceptable and scholarly sounding term for heresy Hairesis the Greek basis for our word heresy referred to a coherent doctrine or tendency a school of thoughtand had a generally positive connotation It was for the Just Cause early Christian heresiologists which for Karen King is synonymous with polemicists that heresy became pejorativeThearly centuries CE were the wild wild west of Christian theology There was not yet a canon There was not yet an stablished authority There was no common creed Instead there were diverse groups ach claiming to be based on the rev This book presents a history of scholarship on Gnosticism It is a critiue of the major trends is scholarship and not an introduction to the texts or traditions commonly called GnosticIt s a great history critiue of scholarship ssential reading for all in the field of ancient Christian traditions It s an ssential compliment to Williams Rethinking Gnosticism which addresses the texts and traditions but is not a history of scholarship Despite the title Karen King does not set out to define Gnosticism Instead her purpose is to consider the ways in which the arly Christian polemicists discourse of orthodoxy and heresy has been intertwined with twentieth century scholarship on Gnosticism in order to show where and how that involvement has distorted our analysis of the ancient textsIn a limited sense I agre. Do we account for the disparate ideas writings and practices that have been placed under the Gnostic rubric To do so Karen King says we.