Christian Gnostics and the error of Pre Hoc Propter Hoc.
- With special thanks to Darrell Bock for directing my attention to
erroneous logic on my part; I have expanded the repertoire of my
logical mistakes to include: Pre Hoc Propter Hoc.
The fact a platonic `demiurgical tradition' had a pre-Christian
existence, does not ipso fact prove that the Christian platonic
`demiurgical tradition' had pre-Christian Jewish or even pre-
Pre-Christian Jewish ancestry of Christian "Gnostic" tradition may in
fact be correct. Scholars are divided on the question begging
absence of evidence.
Horace Jeffery Hodges & Bob Schacht both suggest that Nag Hammadi and
related texts cannot be demonstrated to show a pre-Christian Gnostic
I am grateful to both of you in directing my attention to this
argument. It appears very cogent.
The best review I have come across so far is by Edwin M. Yamauchi
I would be grateful if others would care to comment or to refer me to
other reviews (perhaps more recent).
Thanking you in advance
- --- Thomas Mueller wrote:
>Your logic may well be erroneous, but there is no such fallacy
> With special thanks to Darrell Bock for directing my attention to
> erroneous logic on my part; I have expanded the repertoire of my
> logical mistakes to include: Pre Hoc Propter Hoc.
as 'pre hoc [ergo] propter hoc', simply because no one would
ever argue that way ('before this, therefore because of this').
There is a 'post hoc [ergo] propter hoc' fallacy ('after this,
therefore because of this'), and that may be what Darrell was
indicating (though I can't find his note - perhaps offlist?)