Re: tsunami impact on animals

----- Original Message -----
From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
To: ""George Murphy"" <gmurphy@raex.com>; """Charles Carrigan"""
<CCarriga@olivet.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>; <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: tsunami impact on animals

> What status do you accord the Nag Hammadi texts, as far as their authority
> for Christians is concerned, relative to the canonical books of the NT?
>
> Shalom
> George
>
> I use the texts comparatively, but use the non-canonicals to understand
> the canonicals. It's not a matter of status. It's a matter of the
> preponderance of evidence, and the fleshing out of Biblical ideas. For
> example, the story of Moses at the Red Sea. He didn't command the waters
> to part until a man of Judah had already walked into the water over his
> head in the faith that God would part them. You've never heard that story.
> It is from Jewish sources. I would never have appreciated Jesus walking on
> water until I read it and saw how he was perfectly foreshadowed in this
> story. I gained a more complete understanding of the fall when Jesus said:
> when you disrobe without being ashamed, you will not be afraid, in the nag
> hammadi texts. The saying is the direct opposite of what genesis says
> happened with the fall, only Jesus says it is the return, telling me this
> is how he understood the fall, at least as far as first century gnostics
> were concerned. Since the understanding from the NG texts gels with
> genesis so perfectly, it bolsters my understanding of genesis and helps me
> see how writers of the texts understood and recorded Biblical ideas.

There are 2 rather different things here. One is the type of thing you
refer to with the story of the parting of the Red Sea. Jewish ideas,
legends, biblical intepretations &c are clearly important for an
understanding of the thought & expressions of Jesus & the NT writers - if
they can be shown to be contemporary with them (which isn't always easy). I
think almost all NT scholars recognize this. & I agree that authority isn't
an issue here. It's simply a question of cultural influence on Jesus & the
NT writers.

The Nag Hammadi texts are something else. They - or at least the ones we're
concerned with now - present themselves as accounts of what Jesus said &
interpretations of his significance. I.e., they make claims that in some
cases parallel, in in many cases conflict with, the canonical NT.
Especially where there is conflict the question of authority definitely does
arise.

Your last sentence isn't entirely clear. The Nag Hammadi texts of course do
tell us how the writers _of those texts_ understood the OT. Whether or not
they (a) understood them correctly or (b) understood them the way Jesus did
is of course another matter.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

 
Received on Tue Jan 11 20:42:08 2005