> To question the veracity of the 'content' of a
> work of oral rabbinic literature until its
> transcription centuries after an established
> literary canon is akin, in the opinion of
> Kabbalists at least, to questioning the veracity
> of the 'content' of the gnostic gospels.
> Proponents of an established 'canon' always
> dismiss other works as apocrypha or, in this case,
Frankly, I wonder if mainstream Christianity could benefit from at least paying some public attention to the gnostic literature - I'd never known it existed during my years of Catholic School education. (Then again, I was never informed that the last non-National Hockey League team to win the Stanley Cup had done so two blocks away in 1925 - and this is Canada!)
Maybe the digressions are too great, even for the adult membership. But to complete ignore these 'new' texts is to create a vacuum, that others are left to define. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. You seem like much more of historian than I, more interested in drilling down on these types of things perhaps(?) The relative simplicity I crave is probably most typical of the congregation.
> The thing is: we have Thomas in India; there is a
> tomb of a man who bore the wounds of Roman
> crucifixion in Srinagar; we have a text whose
> author claimed are teachings purported to be at
> least contemporaneous with evangelical gospels
> writing about Brahminical practices in the East.
> All very fascinating. What does it mean? I have no
> idea. What does it prove? Nothing at all.
Agreed. I will see if I can find that book I bought on this subject in India. The name Christ in Kashmir comes to mind, but I may be wrong. I'd like to see if I'm right about Moses supposedly being there too. If I find it, I will let you know. Mark