Talk:Gnostic histories

Self-contradiction I can't tell whether the author thinks that Gnostic history is legitimate history that has been covered up, or bogus history. Also, whether Gnostic history is supposed to apply just to history of Gnosticism, or any pseudohistory. The article's probably unbalanced too, but I can't tell for sure. Maestlin 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to Relevant Article The original article with the title "Gnostic histories" referenced some conspiracy theories that have no relation to the history of Gnosticism and further there is no common usage of the term "Gnostic histories" for such phenomena. It seems to be a polemical use of the term. There is no reason why the term Gnostic histories should redirect to pseudohistory rather than the much more relevant History of Gnosticism. Metagignosko (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)