Henry Imler February 2nd, 2007

Introduction

The purpose of this research paper is to analyze and compare the use of miracle stories in the Canonical and Gnostic gospels. The Canonical gospels will be used to represent what became the orthodox Christian community in West Asia and the Mediterranean. The Gospels of the Nag Hammadi library will be representative of the Gnostic sects with the similar understanding that Gnosticism was not a monolithic tradition, but had many forms. Karen King, in What is Gnosticism?, dismantles the assumption that there was a monolithic entity called Gnosticism. The origins of the assumption date back to the early church fathers who created the dichotomy between orthodoxy and heresy, a dichotomy that still exists in religion and scholarship to this day (King 216). As I have defined it, these groups stretch from the communities that formed the Canonical and Gnostic gospels on to those that ended up employing them. The focus on this paper is not on the communities themselves, but on the writers of the gospels and how they employed miracle stories in their works and how they intended to affect their implied readers. The purpose of this is to obtain a better grasp of how each group viewed reality and employed rhetoric for the purposes of advancing their worldviews.

First, the metaphysical basis of varying approaches to miracle stories will be examined with an emphasis on Hume and Lewis’ positions. Luke will be used as representative of the Canonical gospel tradition. Each Gnostic gospel will be examined individually with the goal of surveying how each author used miracles. Finally, the results of the Canonical and Gnostic gospels’ attitudes towards miracles will be compared and contrasted.

I will argue that the Canonical and Gnostic gospels employed miracle stories with opposite effects. In the Canonical gospels, the primary set of miracle stories served a marketing function, drawing in the first and second century readers to the Canonical gospels. The immediacy of miracle stories to the gospel message formed what Hume would later term a “constant conjunction.” This constant conjunction served to link in the readers mind the practicality of the effects of the miracles and the way of life demanded by Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the gospels. The same power that manifested itself in the miracles was behind the teaching. Once this link of earthly benefits to earthly teaching had been established, a second set of miracle stories were employed to draw the reader to other-worldly benefits and to the corresponding set of other-worldly teachings. This is the opposite effect that the gospels of the Nag Hammadi Library intend to have on their readers. I will argue that the Nag Hammadi gospels, used miracles for a different function; the texts only employed miracles sparsely, using them to emphasize the divine spark in everyone and the priority of spirit over matter. Continue Reading »

• Christianity
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler February 2nd, 2007

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up–for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground– then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Gen 2.5-8)

I am unconvinced with the literal version of Genesis one and two. There are lots of issues here, none of which I want to explore here in depth, at least in the post. There is no way that the earth was created in six 24-hour periods about six or seven thousand years ago. The empirical evidence simply does not support that conclusion. The particulars do not make sense either. Where did the light come from in Gen 1:3? It was not from Sola, because Sola is formed several days later in Gen 1:14, nor was it from God, because it would have always been there. Then there is the minor issue of there being two creation stories back-to-back. In the first one, man is formed after the plants are brought forth; while in the second, man is crafted before the plants. In addition, in the Gen 2 creation story, the text says that the creation of the heavens and earth only took one day.

There have been many a word typed and shouted in trying to formulate a picture of science that admits a young earth and a consistency between the stories in Genesis one and two. However, I have not heard a version that can successfully do this. What is my larger worry here? That, by maintaining these views, the church is driving people away from the good news of Jesus Christ.

In light of this, the first two stories in Genesis, in the whole Bible are myths and not literal word-for-word accounts of what physically happened. What do I mean by myth? I am not typing of a made up story that are completely false. Instead, I refer to a story, not an historical account, one that is true on one or several levels, even though it is not a historical “video-camera” account of what happened.

Ok, if the two stories are logically inconsistent and, based on the empirical evidence that we have, also not consistent with the leading theories of the origin and development of the universe and earth; then what do we do with them?

As I have stated before, I favor the divine fiat theory. I came across five other views over at Open Source Theology. Here are the five other ways to view this problem: Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.

1. Genesis 1 fits within a literary genre of creation myths, but only Genesis 1 gets the story right.
2. Genesis 1 is a myth that eventually proves to be verifiable as truth.
3. Genesis 1 is a myth whose truth is to be found in the moral and metaphysical lessons it teaches.
4. Genesis 1 is a myth written by God.
5. Genesis 1 is part of an all-encompassing myth created by God that includes not just the Biblical text but also the “real world.”

They discuss these alternatives and talk a lot about the notion of real myth and what that means. I would recommend checking the article out and I hope you either share how you view the creation stories here or over there. I think this issue is of tremendous value and needs to be reconciled with our larger world-views. I maintain that both the earth is as old as it seems and that God inspired a true writing of Genesis one and two. Now, how exactly that works out, I don’t know - but damn I want to know.

LINKS:

• Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.
• Answers in Genesis
• Institute for Creation Research
• Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look

This is cross posted at Theology for the Masses.

• Christianity , Religion , Science
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler February 1st, 2007

1) I bought Microsoft Office for the first time. Home and Student 07.

2) I am this guy - The Onion :: Area Man Consults Internet Whenever Possible.

The Internet came in equally handy last Sunday, when
Pamela suggested making pancakes for breakfast. “There was a good
recipe on the side of the Bisquick box, but Larry insisted on getting
on that AltaVista thing and searching for more,” Pamela said.

After only 30 minutes of searching, Wisniewski came up with nearly
200 different pancake recipes. “Without the Internet,” Larry said, “she
would’ve been stuck with the one variety of pancakes available from the
box.”

“Let’s face it,” he added, “Bisquick boxes are a dead medium.”

• Humor
• Comments(4)