Template talk:Gnosticism

May I ask why some of these article links are bolded? If they were featured articles, perhaps it would make sense to me, but they don't appear to be. Jwrosenzweig 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are the two most important Gnostic works.

• The Gospel of Truth, due to its increadibly high literary standard - its not just a religious tract, but something that ranks with Shakespeare.
• The Gospel of Thomas, due to its increadibly strong connection with and importance in understanding the development of the canonical Gospels.

Clinkophonist 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that strikes me as a subjective argument. After all, I could argue that a book of the Bible's literary standard is high (say, the Gospel of John) and that another is incredibly important (say, Genesis, owing to its account of creation and the fall of man) but I could hardly justify calling attention to them in a Books of the Bible template. I'm not disputing the beauty or importance of those two books, but unless we can come up with a much better objective reason to highlight two articles in this infobox, I think we need to avoid bolding any of the links. Jwrosenzweig 05:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed extremely subjective. But it is, however, a subjectivity shared with a large number of historians of early Christianity, and Bible textual studies. Most university biblical studies do not single out the Gospel of John or Genesis as especially worthy (though the statistically small number of academic Creationist church historians may highlight Genesis in their teachings) above the others. But most studies of the apocrypha do single out the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Truth for their respective reasons. Clinkophonist 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you shrink the template. It is too large, especially in articles that are arguably only marginally Gnostic like the Gospel of Thomas. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]