Gnostic Gospels Group Read

A few people have expressed interest in a group read of Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels. We'll start on April 1st. Anyone is welcome to join!

Added this thread to the Group wiki.

Okay, April 1 is borderline manageable.... Surely I can finish God's Philosophers in the next week or so and at least be close to that start date.

I've ordered the book, but don't think it will get here quite that quickly. I'll join in as soon as I can, though.

I'm not sure why I said "April 1st" we can start mid-month too. I'm in the middle of a bunch of books, too. :)

I'm totally flexible, as I already own the book and it will be a re-read.

Yea! It's April 1st! I have Gnostic Gospels on my Nook so I'm ready to begin any time...though I think I'll wait until tomorrow. :) It's nice that this is a shortish book, so it shouldn't take too very long to read.

Still waiting for my book. Another one I ordered on the same day from a different seller has already arrived, so it shouldn't be long.

I've pulled my copy off the bookshelf, ready to go.

I have my copy of the book, but I still have to finish God's Philosopher's first! I'll catch up eventually.

Lurking...

Introduction (24 pp.): Starting with the history of the discovery of the papyri and the shenanigans that ensued as dealers tried to sell them and the Egyptian government tried to possess them, Pagels moves into the differences between the orthodox Christian tenets and those revealed by the documents. Finally, she reviews a rather dry documentation of the scholars working on various aspects of the documents. Finally, she tells us that we will be considering how religion and politics interact in the development of Christianity.

This makes me realize that this book was written over 30 years ago. Several of the books I have read recently were amply familiar with these facts and cited extensively from these documents, still fairly novel at the time of this book.

Well, drat. I got an email from the River, that my Markeplace seller has not shipped my book yet. So I could still be a couple weeks out from acquiring a copy. :-(

I read the opening parts of this that were posted on Amazon......

Roni, what books have you read that are more up to date?

>12 ronincats: You're ahead of me already! I had considered the age of the book...I was originally going to read something newer for that reason. But I've been told that Gnostic Gospels is her jump-off point for several of her books (i.e. she apparently refers to this information in later books?), and I really want to read some of her others!

>13 streamsong: That's too bad! Hopefully they'll ship it soon. I tried to get it from my library and they have 10 copies (all out) and a huge waiting list. I wonder if it's because of her new book Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation that is making the demand for Gnostic Gospels go up? Anyway, the book is short and you can join at any time. I, at least, can keep checking out the thread and responding to comments if they last longer than a month. :)

I don't think the rest of the book will seem dated at all. The books I've read recently that refer to these texts are Pagels' own Revelations and Pagans & Christians by Robin Fox.

I've finished the introduction, too. I don't really have anything to add to Roni's summary above (msg 12), but I do have a thought. I've often wondered where the myth of Mary Magdalene the prostitute came from. She is only referenced in the orthodox Bible a couple of times, and no reference suggests that she was a prostitute. I am wondering now if that rumor emerged in retaliation of the apparent Gnostic belief that Mary Magdalene was the companion of Jesus? I wonder what other reason people would have to start rumors about a woman that surely very few people knew anything about. I know several books came out after the publication of The Da Vinci Code debunking or defending the beliefs that she was a prostitute or that she was Jesus' lover/wife. Has anyone read any of these?

I picked up a copy of The Woman With the Alabaster Jar at a library sale and read it here for an LT group read several years ago. Starbird's thesis was that Mary was indeed Jesus's wife and that she and their daughter fled to France, where you can find traces of the story in art and shrines to 'Black Marie'. It was a really quick, interesting read, but I have no idea how the scholarship holds up.

Bart Ehrman in The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot mentioned that The Da Vinci Code was a fun read, but packed with error after error. He did say he most enjoyed the boost it gave to interest in the field of Gnostic scholarship which hadn't been well known outside of academia. :-)

>17 streamsong: Yeah, too many people forgot that The Da Vinci Code is fiction. It's a quick suspense read that made quite a splash, but that's about it. :) I had to remind several friends that it was fiction back when it was so popular.

I know that there are lots of (not so unreasonable) theories out there about Jesus' relationship with Mary, and I don't know why so many people find it offensive. But to each his own! I grew up thinking Mary was a prostitute and was shocked when I found out there was no evidence. It's just one of those traditions that many people take for granted. But SOMEONE had to have started the rumor! Thanks for the book recs. I'll check them out. I was also thinking about Truth and Fiction in Da Vinci Code, which I can get as an audiobook from my library. It's written by Bart Ehrman, too.

I'm getting through this book a lot faster than I expected, but I'll probably slow down next week...I have now completed chapters 1 and 2.

Chapter 1 was about the difference between the Orthodox beliefs and the Gnostic beliefs on the resurrection of Christ. Did he actually physically resurrect (as the Orthodox Christians claim) or did he spiritually resurrect? The Gnostics tended to teach a more mystical charismatic version of Christianity in which the things they learned from Jesus in visions after his spiritual resurrection were the focus. Orthodox Christians focused on the teachings of Jesus while he was in his physical body--while he was alive and after his resurrection, but before his ascension into heaven. They did not recognize mystical visions as new teachings.

Chapter 2 outlined the political reasons that the Gnostics were banned from the Orthodox church. This was because the Gnostics apparently felt that through their mystical teachings their image of God had transcended from an image easily understood in the physical world--of a God who is Father, Son, judge-of-all, and creator (all finite physical descriptions)--to a metaphysical vision of God who is infinite (i.e. not limited to easily understood images). Because of this, they also apparently felt that the priests and bishops of the Church were symbols of the finite God, and were only authorized to lead the mystically unenlightened (or immature) believers. The bishops of the Church didn't like having their authority questioned (any more then than now, apparently).

My book finally arrived although it may be the weekend before I get much done with it. I started the first few pages of the introduction.

Wow! Think about living in a country so ancient that unexplored caves yield priceless codixes for people to stumble in and discover. A friend who recently returned from Israel said that she had never been anywhere else with a greater sense of history beneath her feet.

These codices have a bloody history; from the purges that led to their being hidden away to their discoverer's literal eating the heart of his father's killer.

And that's as far as I've gotten. I feel like a kid who only read the first page of the book and is trying to write a book report ,,,, so my rambling is now done.

I read Chapter 1 at the same time as the introduction, but didn't want to get too far ahead. I was slightly surprised by the amount of controversy as to whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual, and the support in Scripture for both views. But what was most fascinating were the political implications of the two views--how insisting on a physical resurrection limited authority to the Apostles and their named successors--"What the apostles experienced and attested their successors cannot verify for themselves; instead, they must only believe, protect, and hand down to future generations the apostles' testimony." And the way that Mary's encounter with the risen Christ on Easter somehow didn't confer any authority on her. Very interesting.

You note that it has been so long since I read this book that I really recollect nothing about it.

On to Chapter 2, now.

ETA I think you have it right about the reputation of Mary Magdalene. A number of scholars have hypothesized that her "demonization" was part of the Church's strategy to keep authority strictly in male hands.

I finished Chapter 2, and feel that Rachel summarized it well.

What a fascinating read chapter 3 is, discussing the role of the feminine in God and in the church. I think I'm a Gnostic.

Haha, I've been thinking that, too. I mean, clearly every person's religious experience is going to be unique, and Gnosticism can be "developed" by the student (as the bishops complained about in Chapter 2). I think a rigid, unchanging religion becomes harder for people to relate to after a few generations. :)

I've finished through chapter 4 now.

Chapter 3, as Roni said, had an interesting discussion about the role of women in the orthodox vs. Gnostic faiths. Although not all Gnostics allowed equal participation of women, some (or most?) did. I think that's fascinating given the culture at the time.

In chapter 4, Pagels discusses how martyrs were viewed by both orthodox and Gnostic Christians. I found the chapter interesting because I had never before thought about martyrdom as a cultural trend except in the sense of modern radical Islam. I don't think most Christians are excited by purposeful martyrdom in these days--it seems pointless to purposefully put yourself in a situation in which you'll be killed. I now wonder about martyrdom as a cultural trend. Are the radical Islamists reviving a cultural trend that was popular in the time of Mohammed? If so, is it possible that martyrdom among Christians may also revive? I hope not!

I know that discussion is slightly off-topic of the book, but that's what Chapter 4 made me think about. *shrug*

What struck me most about chapter 4 is that on the issue of Christ's suffering and its implications for martyrdom, the "gnostics" were all over the map while the orthodox Church had the one position. Which says to me that this was not a "make it or break it" issue among the Gnostics.

I've finished the book now. Chapter 5 looked at the writings of both the orthodox and the gnostic documents with everybody claiming to be the "true" church and everyone else heretics. For what ended up being the orthodox Church, the criteria were objective--confess the creed, accept baptism, participate in worship, obey the clergy. "To become truly 'catholic'--universal--the church rejected all forms of elitism, attempting to include as many as possible within its embrace. In the process, its leaders created a clear and simple framework, consisting of doctrine, ritual, and political structure, that has proved to be an amazingly effective system of organization."

The gnostics, on the other hand, pointed to qualitative criteria, requiring evidence of spiritual maturity, insight, and personal holiness, to demonstrate that a person belonged to the true church. The level of understanding of its members and the quality of their relationship with one another distinguish the true church.

The supporters of the orthodox church were comfortable with the concrete terms above because they accept the status quo. Gnostic Christians, confronted within the churches with those whom they saw as ignorant, arrogant, or self-interested, refused to agree that simply meeting those terms made one a Christian.

The chapter continues with the stories of two staunch supporters of the orthodox church, Hippolytus and Tertullian, fervent opponents of heresy, who, when the authority of the church made a decision they didn't like, suddenly broke away and claimed to represent the "true" church after all, in opposition to the authority of the orthodox church they had previously defended.

Gnostics seek after God, seeing Christ's message not as offering a set of answers, but as encouragement to engage in a process of searching. In this process, the seeker creates direct access to Christ himself, "the soul's true shepherd", and does not need the guidance of the bishop and clergy.

"Gnostics tended to regard all doctrines, speculations and myths--their own as well as others--only as approaches to truth. The orthodox, by contrast, were coming to identify their own doctrine as Truth itself, the sole legitimate form of Christian faith...Once having found and believed this, the (orthodox) Christian has nothing further to seek."

The Valentinians took a middle position, claiming that the Body of Christ had two elements, one spiritual and the other unspiritual. Thus both gnostics and non-gnostics stood within the same Church. "Many are called but few are chosen." The gnostics, as the chosen, were to seek and teach so that the others might become more spiritual.

The bishops, of course, objected vehemently to this view as much as the more extreme view, because it challenged all three elements: doctrine, ritual, and especially clerical authority.

I've finished Chapter 5 (so I'm almost done). :) Roni's summary is much better than anything I had to say though!

Chapter 6 talks about how for the gnostics, self-knowledge let to knowledge of God. The Gospel of John was a primary document for them, supporting many of their views.

"When Irenaeus denounce the heretics as "gnostics," he referred less to any specific doctrinal agreement among them (indeed, he often castigated them for the variety of their beliefs) than to the fact that they all resisted accepting the authority of the clergy, the creed, and the New Testament canon."

What did gnostics have in common? A fundamental religious perspective that was antithetical to the claims of the institutional church. Rather than seeing humanity as the passive recipient of God's gifts, they see man as an active partner engaging with God and creating divinity within. Most see ignorance, not sin, as the primary source of man's suffering. Self-knowledge, through search and effort, leads to knowledge of God. The kingdom of God symbolizes a state of transformed consciousness--"The Kingdom of God is within you."Jesus is the guide to this self-awareness adn knowledge. Gnostics used techniques of spiritual discipline such as fasting, meditation, and chants.

But "although major themes of gnostic teaching, such as the discovery of the divine within, appealed to so many that they constituted a major threat to catholic doctrine, the religious perspectives and methods of gnosticism did not lend themselves to mass religion."

This rings a bell for me. In the many years I spent in education as a psychologist, the methods that were most effective in teaching required going beyond the 6 step lesson plan into qualitative criteria for reaching and developing children's minds. Whenever these highly effective teachers put their "methods" down into an objective curriculum that was written down and distributed to the mass of teachers, the effectiveness immediately dropped because those qualitative factors were not included and the mass of teachers simply followed the procedures in the manual. Training teachers by the leaders and their "disciples" in the complete process was too expensive and time-consuming for the education system, despite their success with children. Sound familiar to the above?

Wooo! I've caught up with Roni now!

>29 ronincats: Sound familiar to the above?

:) Yes it does!

I really don't have much to add about Chapter 6 over what Roni has already said. I think the conclusion tied everything up in the book pretty well. Pagels made the point that many insightful Christians people throughout time (like Dostoevsky) tended to have a gnostic-like mysticism because the rules of the orthodox church felt too rigid. She also pointed out that she is not trying to preach gnosticism or to take sides--she is just an historian trying to explain what the sides are. I think she did a VERY good job of this without tending towards sensationalism like some current gnostic scholars.

This was my first Pagels book and I can't wait to read another. I might try The Origin of Satan or her new one on Revelations...

For anyone who is still reading this book, I'm keeping the thread starred so that I can read everyone's comments and respond. So take your time!

I'm about half way done and will finally post a few thoughts on the book.

Something that Bart Ehrman said in his book was that the term gnosticism is a huge umbrella--so large that it's almost not useful to call something 'gnostic' because of the huge variety of writings.

Pagels brings this point out in her introduction. She says that gnostic writers hybridized Christianity with among others, Greek philosophy, Buddhism and other Eastern teachings, Iranian religion and Zorastrian traditions. One researcher, Professor Morton Smith, specializes in those texts that indicate magical practices.

And then Pagels says (p xxxiv) "Because my own research falls into this catagory (i.e., gnosticism and early Christianity), I have selected primarily the gnostic Christian sources as the basis for this book."

So ..... if to me the gnostic texts she has chosen sound more Christian than other, it's because she chose to focus on the more "Christian" texts in order to further her research, which, as she says is: "how the gnostic forms of Christianity interact with othodoxy-- and what this tells us about the origins of Christianity itself".

This helped a lot in my understanding of what is out there in the way of gnosticism .... and how other gnostic texts exist which seem to have nothing whatever to do with Christianity.

I think that diversity was most evident in Chapter 4, where there really was no agreement among the different gnostic writings at all.

I imagine variety is simply necessary in mystic religions because mysticism is so personal. :)