a new hypothesis about the Nag Hammadi discovery
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-real-reason-the-nag-hammadi-library-was-buried
My two cents: we can't nail down any definite information about the find before the documents arrived in Cairo. Denzey rightfully argues that the information obtained by their supposed discoverer (Muhammad Ali) is dubious. Still, I don't find her grave hypothesis very convincing, at least as I have seen her present it in talks. It doesn't fit the colophons in the texts, nor their content (I simply would not agree that post-mortem ascent is the thread binding the library together, rather than the myth of the creation of the world by an imperfect creator). Still, it is an interesting and refreshingly new hypothesis.
My two cents: we can't nail down any definite information about the find before the documents arrived in Cairo. Denzey rightfully argues that the information obtained by their supposed discoverer (Muhammad Ali) is dubious. Still, I don't find her grave hypothesis very convincing, at least as I have seen her present it in talks. It doesn't fit the colophons in the texts, nor their content (I simply would not agree that post-mortem ascent is the thread binding the library together, rather than the myth of the creation of the world by an imperfect creator). Still, it is an interesting and refreshingly new hypothesis.