Here’s the second video on Lash’s theory. As you may recall, in the first video (Part 2 of this series), I searched for terms Lash uses (embryonic, reptilian, fetal, etc.) to claim that the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi describe the “Greys” — the little Grey aliens we know from TV and film that have big heads, slanted eyes, etc. The argument is that the Greys’ appearance is consistent with terms like those Lash allegedly finds for the Gnostic archons in the Gnostic texts. Watch the first video if you want to see what’s really there (or not there).
In this video, I reverse the approach and look for all occurrences of the term “archons” in the Gnostic library from Nag Hammadi. Are they described as Lash suggests? Nope. And more than that, I’ll actually show you a passage that denies Lash’s view.
Click here for the video. It’s 17:54 and the file is quite large, so you need high speed. And don’t forget to turn up your speakers.
Michael:
Your video demolishes Lash’s hypothesis, but is it necessary to wipe the slate clean of such nonsense as Lash puts forth?
I accept, in part, Gnostic views, especially the theology of the demiurgos, as a theological/historical curiosity.
But just as human life and contemporary reality have little or nothing to do with Gnosticism or the God of Old (the demi-urge), neither does Lash’s view have pertinence.
God is dead, insofar as our existence is concerned (my nihilistic view or Nietzschean view perhaps), so getting exercised about Lash’s observation(s) seems to be a waste of intellectual energy.
But your clarifications, separating the wheat from the chaff as it were, help save us time and effort, so encomiums to you…
Rich
@rrrgroup: Well, I don’t plan to waste any more time on Lash. I’m also not a nihilist. And I’ve read too much from physicists who are theists to agree with your statement that “human life and contemporary reality have little or nothing to do with [God].” I actually do try to not post something on PaleoBabble every day — at that point I would have to say my time is being wasted. But there is so much material, and so many people blithely accept the nonsense as fact, that I do feel an obligation to say something periodically.
And I would agree that the merits or demerits of Gnosticism is an inquiry separable from Lash’s nonsense here. I find Gnosticism’s theology / cosmology lacking coherence, in large part because I don’t accept certain articulations of doctrinal points put forth by traditional Christian theology. To me they are straw men, but of course to most other Christians, they aren’t. If I were a complete outsider looking at a debate between the Gnostic vs. orthodox Christian on those points, I’d say the traditional side would need to do better or lose the argument on those issues. But no need to digress.
By the way, Michael, I should make clear that the God I think is dead is the Gnostic God, Yahweh, who was physical (Exodus 4:24).
The ineffable, transcendent thing we can call God is eternal or something like that as my Jesuit masters taught me in seminary…
Rich
RRR: I don’t think you’re handling the physicality of Yahweh correctly (this was part of my dissertation), but kudos on spotting this. There were always two Yahwehs in the OT, something later Judaism called the ‘Two Powers in heaven” idea (both good; not one evil and one good). This was doctrinally permissible in Judaism until the advent of Christianity (no coincidence there).
Michael:
I’d sure like to read your dissertation.
It’s online? In a PDF format or WORD format?
I’m sort of inclined to accept the Jungian view of God as a quaternity…with Satan of Evil as the fourth face/nature of the Godhead….the Melville view.
Is that the demiurge or God above god?
As for the nature of Yahweh, the Hebrew writers, as Bloom noted, had an agenda, so one can imagine those writers doctoring events to make Yahweh as nice a being as possible.
Two natures? More like schizophrenia. Yahweh was demented, as the Gnostics knew.
It’s not just the part where Yahweh wants to kill Moses, but everywhere He shows up ends badly for the Jews.
More harms than good….
But your dissertation will straighten me out…
Rich
RRR: Please – I, along with 99% of the academic biblical studies community, with or without any theological commitment – do not use Bloom as the source of ANY understanding about the biblical text, its exegesis, or biblical theology. He was literally laughed at and about in grad school. Why? He’s not any sort of biblical scholar (being a literary critic doesn’t qualify you), and he has his own Gnostic axe to grind. On one count he isn’t considered competent; on the other he’s anything but objective (and most biblical scholars know TOTAL objectivity is a myth, but you can at least try).
I think it best to wait until November, when I will be able to give you a proof of an HTR article I’m working on (Harvard Theological Review). I just got an article published in a scholarly journal on one of my two foci in the dissertation (this one on divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible). The second focus is this matter of two Yahwehs, how that was a feature of Israelite religion from the get-go. HTR has published a couple articles on the two powers in heaven issue, so I am hoping they bite on this one. If not, I’ll send it off to another journal. It’ll be much more digestible in this form. I can send you the other article if you like.
RRR: By the way, you ASSUME that the referent of him in Exod 4:24 was Moses. It may have been his uncircumcised son (the pronoun reference is ambiguous, and see Exod 4:20). After all, it was the son who needed to circumcised, and Moses had apparently neglected this, not being in a Jewish context (he was among the Midianites at Sinai). Just FYI.
Hey, Mike!
Um well I guess I’ll begin with – I hope this is the place to post this subject.
I don’t know if you remember about another blog site by Ken Klein http://kenkleintv.com/blog/ in which I was expreesing your thoughts and scholarship (I think I represented you fairly) on the subject of Elohim and why it has its plural form and plural verbs and pronouns. The person who started the topic was a contributor called Johnathan which after my response got picked up by a guy called ‘The Manifester’. Well long story short we went round and around until Ken stepped in to ‘re-adjust’ the dialogue. I feel that what I stated is sufficient, but this is the most recent post by “The Manifester’ http://kenkleintv.com/blog/?p=98 (a must read inorder to see what i am dealing with – he mentions you because I mentioned a possible C2C spot on the subject during our dialogue). Anyway his mention of his book, in order to for me to get a perspective on where he is comming from, is what led me to here on this post – I think he might have some gnostic tendices along with a sprinkling of alien – read Sitchin-like qualities. I think you should maybe take a look-see at ‘The Mainfester’s’ website http://www.themanifester.com/ and you will understand. He is also the one who did a ‘new’ translation of Genesis found on Ken’s site. The Manifester reports to have been given new insight – which was revealed to him – about what took place prior to creation. I am not sure how influential he is but I am sure at one time neither was Sitchin. So it might be worth a little time in order to quench the embers before they start to blaze.
Sincerly – Shiloh
@Shiloh: Looks just like another self-styled prophet who sees things no one else has (or maybe can) see in there, as he has special personal revelation. Blah, blah, blah. The best way to just rebut every criticism is to say you talked to an angel or entity, and those who believe such nonsense won’t hear a word of reason. Nice racket if you have no conscience.
Dr. Heiser, have read Lash before and one claim he makes is that the gnostic works were merely pure pagans trying critique Christianity and not a break of heretic sect of christianity. Is he correct in his claim? To me their own works seem contradict this statement.
@redadam: I agree with YOU. “Pure pagans” wouldn’t be out there creating an alternate Jesus story. There is plenty of pagan material from this era that gives us the opinion of Christians by pagans (they thought they were nuts or rabble-rousers).
Thank you for responding it is an honor to write to you. John Lash dose claim from his coast to coast appearances that the Dss and the Nag Hamidi are two rival traditions on the Archon/Aliens(Lashes idea) issue. Via each sect’s cosmology they target each other, the Essenes in his mind are compliant with the Nephilim hence proarchons ( he really need to reread the Enoch lit found at Qumran. The gnostic groups ( which on comprise part of Nag Hamadi) are the group that exposed the Archons schemes. In your mind do you think there is a danger in an incomplete understanding of the Nephilimic subject matter in the psedoapocrypha and that it can lead to a John Lash?
@redadam: Boy, he really does have to read into the Qumran material to get that! Why not just rewrite it, like the Gnostics did to the Jewish Bible. In answer to your question: yes – I think the example proves the point.
It would seem to me that Lash has taken Stichin one step futhur. He has Stichin’s logic but has an ax to grind against christianty and Judaism unlike Stichin who was less confronational in some ways. On coast to coast I actual heard him say he wants to convert christians from a mind virus.
@redadam: yeah, not surprising.
It is generally accepted that the Gnostic’s were originally Jews whose beliefs in the divine broke off from the traditional view of God. The idea that the Gnostic’s were nothing more then a Christian heresy has long since been discarded, if its a heresy its a Jewish heresy not a Christian one. But then again Christianity itself could be viewed as nothing more the a Jewish heresy.
this generally accepted idea comes from whom? I like sources and citations (from real scholars).
Hello Dr. Heiser,
You say: “The best way to just rebut every criticism is to say you talked to an angel or entity, and those who believe such nonsense won’t hear a word of reason. Nice racket if you have no conscience.”
I thought that talking to an angel or an entity was the whole basis for the Abrahamic religions.
You seem to be saying that anybody claiming today to have received a special revelation from Angels
Even conversations with angels are viewed skeptically in the Bible. I’ll see if you know the material well enough to find that.
Oops…