Elaine Pagels, <t>The Gnostic Paul</>. Fortress 1975.

Reviewed by Sean-Michael Green for R.Kraft's RelSt 436 course
at UPenn (Spring 1999).


Elaine Pagels is a professor at Princeton University, and her 
area of expertise is Gnosticism. Her book is interesting and 
helpful, although it was necessary for me to learn more about 
Gnostic systems before I could understand aspects of this rather 
esoteric work. Pagels devotes a chapter to each of Paul's 
letters, excluding the Pastorals. The Pastorals, unlike the 
majority or Pauline writings, are difficult to read as Gnostic 
works, and they actually seem to be filled with anti-gnostic 
sentiment. Pagels does not clarify whether she choses not to use 
the Pastorals because they do not support her general 
interpretation of Pauline letters or because she believes (as do 
most scholars) that the Pastorals are not authentic letters of 
Paul [and perhaps were unknown to the early Gnostics; RAK]. For 
the other canonical letters of Paul, she devotes a chapter to 
examining the Gnostic content within Paul's words. She does so 
by approaching the letters as would a second century Gnostic such 
as Valentinus, i.e. she does not try to impose a Gnostic reading 
upon earlier readers and she tries to give interpretations 
claimed by second century Gnostics. 
 
I will begin by discussing two book reviews that I have consulted 
for the purposes of this project, and end with my own brief 
comments. 

Joseph Gibbons, a professor of religious studies at St. John's 
University, writes the first review, published in the journal, 
Theological Studies 38 (1977). The review, frankly, is short and 
vague. It is, however, favorable. Gibbons writes that Pagels 
goals include: 

1. An exploration of the methods utilized by members of the 
Valentinian sect to derive Gnostic meanings from the letters of 
Paul. 

2. To examine the second-century exegesis while not being drawn 
into debates concerning Gnosticism in the first-century. 

Gibbons seems satisfied with Pagels' goals and her accomplishment 
of those goals. He writes that Pagels was careful to avoid 
drawing conclusions from her work, but that her work allows the 
reader to investigate one of the first semi-systematic 
presentations within Christianity of classic religious questions 
(e.g. the problem of evil, predestination, etc.). 

The second review is written by Pheme Perkins, who teaches at 
Boston College, and published in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 
38 (1976). This review is considerably harsher than the first. 
Perkins lists the following problems with Pagels' book: 

1. In a prior work, Pagels stresses the importance of 
distinguishing between three frameworks of Valentinian thought; 
she believes that the first order of business is necessarily to 
determine which framework is being utilized. In "The Gnostic 
Paul," however, Pagels mixes the three systems with abandon. 

2. Much of Pagels' evidence, according to Perkins, stems from 
speculation. Tracing the references provided often leads not to a 
Pauline passage but to commentary by another author. Sometimes 
the connection between the reference and the interpretation is 
impossible to find. 

3. A great deal of Pagels' interpretation revolves around a 
textual reading that Perkins calls "unique." Perkins goes into 
great detail (too much for this summary) explaining that Pagels' 
view leads to contradictions. 

At this point, Perkins states that there are two "larger 
difficulties": 

4. How did Pagels determine the questions that a Gnostic reader 
is asking when facing a certain passage? In other words, Pagels 
assumes that she has access to the questions asked by Gnostics, 
and she uses those unsupported assumptions to complete her 
picture of the Valentinian exegesis. And finally, 
 
5. Pagels writes that the greetings in Paul's letters can be 
read on two levels. Sometimes Pagels confronts both readings; 
other times she addresses only one interpretation. How does she 
determine which passages to interpret in which way? 

Perkins believes that once these methodological presuppositions 
and difficulties have been cleared up, the book will be a useful 
tool. 

Although I have no doubt that many of Perkins' criticisms were 
merited, she seems to be rather hasty to attack. Pagels does 
tend to cite other early authors (e.g. Heracleon) to support her 
interpretations of passages. I admit that it would be helpful if 
Paul would have been a bit clearer on the subject. But it seems 
that sometimes ancient commentary is the best evidence to be 
found; and on a subject like Gnosticism, which is an evolving 
system of belief, interpretation from Gnostics and their critics 
can be quite useful. Also, it appears that Perkins fourth problem 
is a stretch. As Gibbons points out, Pagels is not providing 
grand conclusions as much as she is exploring evidence. As far 
as I have read, Pagels has not claimed that she knows every 
question raised by Gnostics, but she does make claims about 
questions that can be determined by reading Gnostic answers. 
Pagels' methodology is not always clear, but neither is it as 
muddled as Perkins suggests. 

Overall, Pagels work -- although not an introductory text --
provides ample detail and support for understanding Gnostic 
interpretations of Paul's letters in the second century. 

//end//