Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels - Amazon.com Customer Reviews

[Guest guest]

>

> " Yet all the sources cited so far — secret gospels, revelations,

> mystical teachings — are among those not included in the select list

> that constitutes the New Testament collection. Every one of the

> secret texts which the gnostic groups revered was omitted from the

> canonical collection, and branded as heretical by those who called

> themselves orthodox Christians. By the time the process of sorting

> the various writings ended — probably as late as the year 200 —

> virtually all the feminine imagery for God had disappeared from

> Orthodox Christian tradition.

>

> Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels,

> Random House Inc. New York, 1989, p. 58.

>

 

The Gnostic Gospels

Customer Reviews

 

Visible Structured Dogma vs. Subjective Experience & Choice,

December 1, 2004

By Richard Schwartz (United States)

 

This book is very enlightening and I think highly significant for anyone

professing the Christian faith. In the second century of our common era, the

Catholic Church, under their interpretation of Christianity, which differed from

the Gnostics, as found in the Nag Hammadi. In this they constructed the bible

cannon including the 66 books commonly used by all current day Protestants, and

in addition, the apocryphal. In turn, they rejected scores of other books that

were just as valid expressions of the Christian experience. In this, they

omitted crucial variations into the understanding of an experience that went far

beyond mere doctrines and dogma. And this is exactly what the Gnostics endorsed,

a Christianity that emanated from individual subjective experiences, each having

a private interior journey, as in the case of St. Paul, as opposed to prescribed

doctrines and organization hierarchy. They supported an invisible brotherhood of

inclusive equality as opposed the visible hierarchal organization endorsed by

the Orthodox. Thus they violently opposed each other; however there were

exceptions made for the Orthodox within different schools of Gnosticism. In this

they did not support a physical resurrection, but rather subjective experiential

visions as in Christ's (visionary) appearance to Martha and later to St. Paul on

the road to Damascus and his vision of being " caught up in a third heaven, "

which equated to the rejection of Christ's sole appearance to the Apostles,

supposedly designating their unique authority and the inherited authority of

their so-called successors, the Orthodox Catholic church. While the Gnostics

walked in the uncertainty of self discovery and freedom of choice, the Orthodox

rested in the fundamentalism of certainty, safety and captured structure.

 

What I think makes this book so good is that fact that is comprehendible without

the philosophical, theological abstractions and circular semantics you will find

in other explanatory expressions in Gnostic scholarship.

 

Unlike the Orthodox, the Gnostics did not seek answers, but instead they sought

furthering the process of asking questions. This is a major difference. Like the

East in various forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, their progression of

understanding existed in subjective experience through meditation, contemplation

and the search inward as opposed to the external search of traditional

monotheism found in various forms of Judaism and the Orthodox. It was an

internal search to " know thyself, " as Socrates had so stated, as well as the

contemporary Plotinus, although he was an objective philosophical metaphysicist,

who rejected both Eastern thought, Gnosticism, and all Christianity for that

matter, for its simplicity and lack of definitive philosophical explanation,

which be believed was the only way to enlightenment.

 

In this, the Valentinus school of Gnostic thought rejected the literalization of

the Hebrew Scriptures, rejecting the God of Israel's claim of Oneship,

perceiving him as a lesser divine being who serves as the instrument of the

higher powers, and thus stated in ignorance, " I am the only God, there is no

other, " and " I am a jealous God. " In this, they defined the Creator as Plato's

demiurge, the creator was not the same as the divine essence the permeated all

Beinghood. Rather, the creator existed as a form apart from the perfect absolute

idea that rested beyond the form, as in the case of Sophia, the mother of the

demiurge, similar to Paul Tillich's expression of the " God beyond God. "

Anotherwards, the dualism of Plato's God of Good, the eternal and unchanging in

the world of perfect forms of Sophia-Wisdom and the God of Demiurge, the

fleeting and impermanent God, Yahweh, in the world of changes. The Creator of

the Hebrew Scriptures is not the eternal God, Valentinus explains, but the

demiurge who reigns as king and lord, who acts as a military commander, who

gives the law and judges those who violate it. Achieving gnosis recognizes the

ignorance that dwells both in the demiurge's claims of being the " only God " and

that of those who interpret this world of senses as reality. Gnosis involves

coming to recognize the true source of divine power, the depth of all being, the

Father and Mother. Before gaining gnosis, the candidate worshiped the demiurge,

mistaking him for the true God, but now has been released from the demiurge's

power, declaring his independence, transcending it. Valentinus' writes to his

opponent, Clement:

 

" You claim to represent God, but, in reality, you represent only the demiurge,

whom you blindly serve and obey, I, however, have passed beyond the sphere of

his authority and so, for that matter, beyond yours! "

 

In this Valentinus rejected the idea of one creator God of this world of senses,

one Bishop and one visible Church to obey, but favored subjective experience, as

in visions, dreams, intuitive awareness and flashes of insight and artistic

expression.

 

Interestingly, they followed the Newtonian cause and effect of a belief system,

as in Orthodoxy with gatherings and shared expressions, and yet, they rejected

hierarchy, letting the Quantum law of acausal effect take place in that they had

no hierarchy, no dogmas and no strict organizational structure. Therefore they

drew lots at each meeting to decide on the spot who would be the priest, leader

and directors of each meeting, inclusive to all, both male and female.

 

Now there were various schools of thought within Gnosticism, Valentinus,

Basilides, Marcion and others, not all endorsed the above and they fought

amongst themselves, which makes this information much more detailed. This book

contains not only information on the Gnostics but various quotes from the well

known Orthodox leaders, as Clement, Tertullian (who later left the Orthodox),

Irenaeus, Ignatius and others in their views against the Gnostics for a well

rounded view of both the Gnostics and its opposing viewpoints, although there

were many variations. Also, Pagels has other books on the Gnostics, The

Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, The Gnostic Paul, The Secret Gospel of

Thomas and Beyond Belief, which go further into the Gnostic teachings.

 

 

A provocative, insightful look at the early Christian church,

December 23, 2003

By Daniel Jolley " darkgenius " (Shelby, North Carolina USA)

 

Noted historian of the early church Elaine Pagels has produced a

clear, cogent, and very effective introduction to the subject of

Gnosticism, a different form of Christianity that was declared

heretical and virtually stamped out by the orthodox church by the

start of the second century after Christ. Most of what we knew of the

Gnostic belief system came from the religious authors who worked so

hard to destroy the movement, but that changed drastically with the

still relatively recent discovery of a number of lost Gnostic

writings near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. Unlike the Dead Sea

Scrolls, this momentous discovery of ancient papyri has received

little attention, and I must admit I went into this book knowing

virtually nothing about Gnosticism. As an historian by training and a

Christian, the information in these " heretical " texts intrigue me,

and I believe that Christians should challenge their faith by

examining material that does not fall in line with accepted beliefs.

I should note that Pagels does not attempt to summarize or examine in

detail the Gnostic Gospels in and of themselves; her particular focus

here is the way in which Gnosticism affected the rise of the orthodox

church that declared the Gnostics heretics. Still, she presents a

great deal of information on many of the newly discovered texts and

inarguably shows that the Christian church was founded in a society

espousing a number of contradictory viewpoints.

 

Pagels does a good job of presenting the context in which the early

Christians lived and eventually argued against one another. The

debate was seemingly one over spiritual authority, and social and

political issues played a part alongside purely religious

disagreements between different factions. I think she tends to

overemphasize the sociopolitical implications of Gnosticism, yet her

arguments are certainly sensible and enlightening. One of the

problems with Gnosticism as a movement was the disagreement among

many so-called Gnostics on a number of issues. In terms of Gnosticism

as a whole, however, one can point to a number of thoughts and ideas

that ably represent the whole. Gnostics basically saw their faith as

an internal thing, a practice based on the secret knowledge Jesus

supposedly shared with a select number of individuals, one of whom

was Mary Magdalene. Gnostics attracted women in particular because

most Gnostics viewed everyone as equal and allowed for the

participation of women in any sacred act. The orthodox, arguing that

the disciples were men and thus the church held no leadership

positions for women, opposed the teachings on these grounds. Gnostics

basically believed that one found Christ in oneself; inner visions

were the trademarks of true Gnostics. To the orthodox church founded

on the basis of Peter's succession as the head of the church,

Gnostics thus placed themselves not only on the same footing as the

apostles but above even the Twelve. They tried to answer their own

questions as to how Christ could be both human and divine, and many

of them came to view Christ as a spiritual being who only appeared to

suffer and die. Many also interpreted the virgin birth in spiritual

rather than human terms. To the orthodox Christians, this was

blasphemy, for the church as we know it is basically built on the

faith and belief that God's son took on a human form and died in the

literal sense on the Cross in order to conquer Death and save all of

his followers. Some Gnostics came to believe that the Creator was not

God but a demiurge who falsely declared there was no other God but

him. Thus, orthodox Christians were seen as following a false god out

of ignorance, a charge that did not set well with orthodox

Christians. The orthodox beliefs on the subject of resurrection

legitimized a hierarchy of persons through whose authority all others

must approach God. Gnostic teachings were thus seen as subversive of

this social order by offering direct access to God outside of the

priests and bishops of the orthodox church.

 

A true discussion of Gnostic beliefs would take many pages to even

begin, and Pagels has jam packed a relatively short book with much

information along those lines. Her contrast between the two competing

forms of early Christianity clearly explains how and why the orthodox

church worked so vehemently to stamp out the heretical Gnostic

acolytes. I am of the opinion that Gnosticism would have died out of

its own accord had it not been declared heretical; its followers

basically practiced a deeply personal and largely unorganized form of

worship that excluded the masses. The early church needed

organization in order to survive, especially during the times of

awful persecution we find in the centuries after Christ's death. This

is a deeply provocative book indeed, addressing a subject I will

continue to investigate. As a Christian of fundamentalist Southern

Baptist persuasion, I will add that nothing I read here posed any

threat to my current beliefs or faith. Those Christians who fear the

influence of a different type of Christianity should not avoid this

book or others like it out of fear; instead, such individuals should

test their faith by reading this provocative material because one's

faith can actually be strengthened rather than weakened by such

endeavors.

 

 

What makes a " heresy " ?, October 17, 2007

By Stephen A. Haines (Ottawa, Ontario Canada)

 

This review is from: Gnostic Gospels (Paperback)

 

A fortuitous event occured on an Egyptian hillside nearly half a century ago.

The finding of a set of papyrus books might have sundered the Christian world

irreparably. Or it might have heralded a new ecumenical movement undreamt of in

an earlier day. The books proved to be the writings of a Christian sect known as

the Gnostics. This group formed shortly after the death or disappearance of the

teacher known as Jesus. The followers of this teacher generated many

interpreters in the years after his disappearance, but these were either

absorbed in the orthodoxy created by Roman Emperor Constantine or killed or

driven into exile by the hierarchy established by his fiat. Most of their

writings disappeared with them.

 

Pagels, a specialist in the Gnostic gospels, presents the story of the find and

outlines the philosophy with sympathy and clarity. In six succinct chapters, she

reveals the drastic departure from what we know as Christianity today. Although

others have questioned the notion of the Trinity, the Gnostics were firmly

opposed to the tripartite division of one spirit into three identities.

 

The " resurrection " , so firmly entrenched in today's faith, was viewed in a

completely different way by the Gnostics. Their writings contest the notion of

Jesus as a deity in human form. Furthermore, the Gnostics couldn't accept the

restricted group of " observers " of the resurrected Jesus that orthodox accounts

relate. Displays of the spirit would occur down through time, they contested,

and to all who were prepared to see it. This universal revelation overturned the

sort of hierarchical structure that was developing among other Christians and

would be endorsed by Constatine. The Gnostics felt relations with the deity

should be universally available. Adding priests, deacons and bishops to " run

interference " was contrary to divine will. Pagels doesn't miss the point that

much of Reformation thinking was built along similar lines.

 

The Gnostics were but one of the Christian sects, but well established

throughout the Mediterranean countries by the beginning of the second century of

the Common Era [CE]. From the scattered writings that survived the orthodox

holocaust against them, there were serious thinkers and writers among them. Only

a few commentaries reached modern times, but the vehemence of the orthodox

clerics condemning their practices and beliefs has told scholars much. Until the

papyrus writings were unearthed, Valentinus' views were the voice of Gnosticism.

The Gnostic gospels also demonstrate that unity of opinion was no more prevalent

among them than it is with today's Christianity. The role of women, severely

constrained by orthodox bishops and theologians, was instead one of equality

with the Gnostics. The Gnostics went so far as to rotate the leadership of a

congregation among all the members, men and women alike.

 

Hierarchy, of course, won the political battle. The victory was nearly absolute,

but not easily won until Constantine's interference. Orthodox writers railed

against the widespread and clearly popular acceptance of Gnostic practices and

teachings. The Gnostics claimed, rightly as the Nag Hammadi books attest, to

equal authority in relating Christian origins. Early Gnostic writers laid firm

claim to having accounts of events in Jesus' life. Exchanges between the teacher

and his apostles familiar to us today, were depicted as vastly different in

Gnostic accounts. The major distinction is the role played by Mary Magdelene.

The dimunition of her place in the group around Jesus is vigorously overturned

by the Gnostics, who placed her first among equals. As Pagels is quick to note,

what differences in today's society, religious or secular, would exist had this

view prevailed? [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

 

 

Outstanding scholarly work, April 11, 2007

By Gaetan Lion

 

Originally written nearly 30 years ago, this book remains a must-read on the

subject. Elaine Pagels is a renowned scholar with a Harvard Ph.D. in religion.

She directly studied and translated some of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts in the

early seventies. Her related research represents the foundation of this book.

She later became a Princeton professor. She wrote several seminal books on

Christianity. Her lifelong work has significantly advanced our knowledge of

early Christianity.

 

Each chapter focuses on a specific tenet of Christianity and stresses the

differences between Gnostic and orthodox Christians. While the orthodox

Christians believe in the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection, the

immaculate conception of Jesus, and martyrdom; the Gnostic Christians interpret

the resurrection in a spiritual way (not a literal one). They also do not

believe in the Immaculate Conception. And, they reject martyrdom as a fanatical

practice not reflecting Jesus' teachings.

 

The Gnostic Christians don't believe in the orthodox Christians' hierarchy.

Gnostic Christians believe each of us has direct access to God. And, that

orthodox bishops and priests represent unwanted obstacles to this access.

Additionally, Gnostic Christians do not exclude women as the sexes are equal in

front of God. They even revere God as both the Father and the Mother. Also, they

don't consider Mary Magdalene to be a woman of ill repute, but instead an equal

if not a superior to the twelve apostles.

 

For Gnostic Christians, the overarching factor is how much gnosis (knowledge) a

believer has. This also entails wisdom and maturity. Gnosis is means knowledge

based on empirical firsthand experience in Greek. It entails self-knowledge or

" know thyself " a key concept in Greek philosophy (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates).

For Gnostic Christian this concept is so important that knowing self ultimately

leads to knowing God. Thus, there is no separation between God and the

individual. This underlines the drastic difference between Gnostic and orthodox

Christians. The author mentions that this concept leads to Gnosticism having a

significant influence on modern Existentialism.

 

Gnostic Christians also considered Jesus to be a spiritual guide more than a

divine entity. The author indicates that other historians suggested this concept

comes from Buddhism and that early Gnostic Christians may have likely been

influenced by Buddhism. They support their arguments by the existing trade

routes of the time that linked the relevant regions allowing for the mentioned

exchange of spiritual concepts.

 

Pagels advances that the orthodox Christians more concrete criteria to join

their religion were at the essence of their success over their Gnostic

counterparts. For a religion to be successful it needs more than ideas. It needs

a strong organizational political structure that promotes its expansion based on

principles readily understandable to newcomers. Orthodox Christianity had all

these elements enhancing its prospective success. Gnosticism had ideas alone.

Within two centuries, the Gnostic movement will have disappeared and orthodox

Christianity will flourish presenting a fairly united front for over a

millennium until Martin Luther in the 16th century. Oddly enough, Luther's

Reformation would adopt certain of the Gnostics concepts including the

deemphasizing of a religious hierarchy and implementing the more direct access

between each individual and God.

 

To this day the majority of Christian movements follow an orthodox Christian

structure. Gnostic Christianity has entirely disappeared; But as mentioned some

of its ideas have survived within eastern philosophies (Buddhism), classical

Greek philosophy, and modern existentialism.

 

This is a fascinating book on a subject with an extensive literature. If you

like this book, I strongly recommend all the other books written by the same

author. I also recommend books written by Michael Baigent. In particular, his

latest book " The Jesus Papers " is excellent.

 

 

Is Gnosticism Anti-Christ?, February 27, 2005

By Butch (From the American Heartland.)

 

I very much admire Elaine Pagels for having the courage to enter the

controversial and unorthodox realm of Gnosticism. Daring to investigate one's

enculturated taboos is never an easy task. First there are one's own fears. Then

there is the fact that many of the guardians of the religious status quo will

see one as lost at best, or even as an anti-Christ at worst. Spiritual freedom

is both a personal and a social issue. No man or woman is an island. The pride

of religious certainty is often quick to judge those that question the reason

for that certainty. People, myself included, don't like change. Such is the

religious mindset in spades. We all have this tendency, to protect or defend our

turf, to resist change. The Apostle Paul had to be struck by lightning before he

could see the light. To disagree agreeably, rather than the current trend of

arguing ideologically, is becoming a lost art. One cannot listen when one is

only thinking about what one will say next. In religion, as in politics,

communication can be difficult to say the least. Especially in these fractured

post-modern times.

 

Jesus had very little patience where religiosity is concerned. His criticism of

the religious mindset in the 23rd Chapter of Matthew, the Chapter of the " Seven

Woes " , is damning. The burden of legalism and the hypocrisy of those that fail

to practice what they preach had him calling the religious leaders of his

community a brood of vipers. Jesus was a rebel with a cause, the prototype for

all spiritual freedom fighters everywhere. Man was not made for the law, the Law

was made for Man. The highest form of religion is love, and the highest form of

government is personal responsibility. The more freedom we have, the more

responsibility we have. Balance is fundamental to the spiritual life.

 

Jesus disliked pretense intensely. He saw it for the prison that it is. He was

far more concerned with the inside than the outside of a person, with what came

out of the mouth more than what went in, with the heart. Having the heart of a

Lion he looked reality in the eye. Jesus looked at reality from God's

perspective, and taught others to do likewise. We need to be more tolerant of

each other's religious views, more ecumenical, more loving. God belongs to

everyone, and no one. Jesus' message about the reality of the Kingdom of God was

not just for one people, it was for anyone that would or will listen with the

single eye of their heart. The greatest commandment is love, not doctrine. In

that spirit, though I don't always agree with everything she has to say,

Elaine's thoughts are worth considering and her heart is in the right place. She

just wants to know the truth where Gnosticism is concerned. She has a brave

heart. This book is well worth reading.

 

To wet your curiosity just a bit I should point out that the word Gnosticism

comes from the Greek word 'gnosis'. Gnosis refers to a secret kind of knowledge

known only by a few. As Plotinus suggested in the " Ennead " , the sanctity of the

mystical or religious experience is to be protected from being made common.

Jesus, Moses, and Elijah each went into the desert for forty-days and

forty-nights to be alone with God. This is an uncommon act. What does this have

to do with Gnosticism and Christianity?

 

" When Jesus was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the

parables. He told them, " The secret of the Kingdom of God has been given to you.

But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be

ever seeing, and never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding;... "

Mark 4:10-12. NIV.