Religious
Studies 535 (
Review by Douglas Finkbeiner
of
Elaine
Pagels
The Gnostic Gospels
Random
House, 1979
Introduction: In this
volume, Pagels discusses the debate between the gnostics and the "orthodox"
church. While recognizing that there
were theological reasons for strongly opposing each other, Pagels explores the
political and social reasons for such intense opposition. An overview of her six chapters is followed
by an analysis of her perspective.
I. An overview of The Gnostic
Gospels
*Her volume is composed of six chapters sandwiched between a
lengthy introduction and a brief conclusion.
A. Introduction:
Pagels discusses the discovery of the Nag Hammadi
library, the possible explanations for its original burial, the difficulty with
getting the manuscripts translated for a larger audience, and the ramifications
of the discovery for understanding the diversity of Early Christianity and
Hellenistic philosophy. She, then,
raises the issue of the political dimension for understanding the intense
opposition between the gnostics and the orthodox.
B. Chapter One: The
Controversy over Christ's Resurrection: Historical Event or Symbol?
*Pagels explains the difference between orthodox and
gnostic teaching concerning the resurrection of Jesus. While the orthodox position supports a
literal resurrection, the gnostic position argues for a non-literal view, in
which the resurrection symbolically represents the ongoing personal encounters
that people can have with the spiritual Christ (5, 15-16). Since Pagels believes both perspectives can
be found in the NT itself (6, 14-15), she wonders why "orthodox Christians
in the second century insist on a literal view of resurrection and reject all others
as heretical?"(6) She sees the primary reason as political. If authority resided with the apostles and
their teaching because they witnessed the literal resurrection of Jesus and
with subsequently endorsed leadership, then leadership was restricted to a few
for the orthodox. If anyone's personal
encounter with the spiritual Christ was equally valid, then there could be no
claim to a hierarchical structure for the gnostic. Thus, Pagels argues that the gnostic position
was a threat to orthodox hierarchy (14).
C. Chapter Two: One
God, One Bishop: The Politics of Monotheism
*While gnostics differ over plurality of gods or the
ultimate oneness of God (31), they were in agreement that the creator god was
inferior and foolish. Conversely, the
orthodox were in strong support of the creator god as the only true God. Again, Pagels argues that the intense
opposition between the groups cannot be exhausted by merely arguing from each
group's religious conviction (33, 46).
She again sees a strong political dimension. The orthodox believed that "the bishop
ruled over the community 'as God rules in heaven'"(38). If a gnostic would attack the demiurgos, then
he/she could subsequently attack the authority of the bishop.
D. Chapter Three:
God the Father/God the Mother
*This chapter breaks down into two basic sections. In the first section, Pagels presents the
gnostic view of god as a dyad (i.e. masculine and feminine; cf. Gen. 1:27) (50)
and discusses the different gnostic views on the divine mother (the original
couple, the Holy Spirit, Wisdom) (51-55).
In the second section, she explains why the feminine for god drops out
of orthodox Christianity (57-68). She
believes that a theological (or mystical) explanation is insufficient to
explain this phenomena (57-59). Once
again, she finds a stronger explanation in the socio-political realm. Because gnostics gave women equal privileges
as men and thus extended authority to all participants, the orthodox reacted
against any view that would elevate women to an authoritative position. Pagels argues that the orthodox retaliated
with harsh criticism for any feminine attachment to the Creator and with the
creation of pseudo-Pauline literature (
E. Chapter Four: The
Passion of Christ and the Persecution of Christians
*Pagels begins this chapter by noting the difference
between the gnostics and the orthodox church over the physical suffering of
Jesus. Then she asks why orthodox
Christianity held to its literal view about the suffering of Jesus so
vehemently (75) in opposition to the gnostics, who do not see Christ as
suffering physically. Her response is
that there is a political/sociological reason.
Pagels argues for a connection between the physical suffering of Jesus
and the obsession with physical martyrdom within the leadership of the orthodox
church. Conversely, the gnostics,
although persecuted to a lesser degree, did not focus upon the importance of a
verbal confession but upon the life one lives (90-96). She ends the chapter by arguing that the
orthodox position on martyrdom and Christ's death prevailed in Christendom because
such a stance promoted homogeneity and support for the leadership structure of
the orthodox church.
F. Chapter Five:
Whose Church is the '
*Pagels begins this chapter by noting that both sides
denounced and attacked the other side in their writings (in addition, some
gnostics also attacked other gnostics) (102-104). She suggests that one could label various
groups on a continuum, in which radical gnostics were on one side and orthodox
adherents were on the other side. While
these two groups attacked each other, they also had little involvement with
each other. In the middle, she places
Valentinian gnostics. While some
Valentinians isolated themselves from the orthodox (East), other Valentinians
endorsed a strategy of infiltration within the orthodox church for the purpose
of attracting adherents (115-117).
Again, Pagels sees a power game between these Valentinians and the
orthodox church (118). She describes the
criteria for a true believer as distinct for each group. While the orthodox church focused upon
doctrinal confession, ritual acts, and submission to an institutional
structure, the gnostic believers emphasized experiential knowledge, community,
and an ascetic lifestyle (106-110). Again,
she argues that the orthodox position was more accessible to a larger audience.
G. Chapter Six:
Gnosis: Self-Knowledge as Knowledge of God
*In this chapter, Pagels differentiates some of the
beliefs of orthodoxy and gnosticism.
While orthodoxy sees humanity's problem as sin, gnosticism sees it as
ignorance (124, 126). While orthodoxy
underscores submission to an outside authority (Scripture, institutional
structure), gnosticism underscores self-discovery through meditation and
silence (126-128, 131-132, 134). While
orthodoxy is spatially and temporally focused, gnosticism is internally focused
(e.g. kingdom as earthly or internal, events as salvation-historical or
internal) (129-130). While Jesus is
superior according to orthodoxy, he is
equal with one who is enlightened according to gnosticism (130-131). Orthodoxy sees religious language as more
literal but gnosticism sees it as non-literal (133).
Pagels sees some interesting similarities along
with some differences between gnosticism and psychotherapy (126-127, 130,
133-134). She also notes that gnosticism
has limited teaching on spiritual disciplines for initiates (135-140).
She ends her chapter by stating that orthodoxy grew
as a movement because it appealed to the
masses in a way that gnosticism never could (140-141).
H. Conclusion:
*Pagels summarizes her book in the conclusion. She argues that the controversy between
orthodoxy and gnosticism was not primarily a 'history of ideas' debate (after
all Jesus sayings can be understood in a variety of ways- 148), but rather the
ideas were "expressions or symbols of religious experience."
(143-149) Thus, some people, who preferred solitary, personal self-disclosure
and who defined evil as internal distress over physicality, would gravitate
toward gnosticism. Others, who preferred
institutional structures, saw evil in terms of ethical treatment of others, and
affirmed natural order (e.g. marriage), would gravitate toward orthodoxy. She believes that orthodoxy won out and was
then able to write history from the winner's perspective because its approach
and structure was much more universally appealing than gnosticism.
II. An analysis of The Gnostic
Gospels
A. Strengths in the book:
1. Her grasp of gnostic material is impressive. She moves freely between anti-gnostic writers
and gnostic writers. Her endnotes are
filled with primary sources rather than with secondary sources.
2. Her writing style is clear. It was easy to follow her arguments. She was able to take complicated concepts
(e.g. uses of divine mother) and organize them clearly and concisely.
3. She drew some thought-provoking parallels between
gnosticism and psychotherapy as well as Buddhism (133-134, 146).
4. She raised the sociological dimension as a shaping
factor in the development of Early Christianity.
B. Weaknesses in the
book:
1. The sociological dimension seemed to take a place of
prominence in her argumentation, even though she offered qualifiers throughout
the book (e.g. 46-47).
a. She downplayed a "history of ideas" approach
to the tension between orthodoxy and gnosticism by portraying the NT material
(Jesus sayings, Pauline material, Johannine material) as ambiguous and
confusing (6, 14-15, 61-62, 148). She
argues that the NT could be understood either way. I found her argumentation unconvincing.
b. Her connections between the
sociological/political issues which underlie the theological rhetoric are not
well-developed in chapters two (33-34, 36-37), three, or four. I felt that she turned correlatives into
causalities.
c. When she argued for religious experience as
being more determinative than theological ideas and concepts, I felt like I was
reading William James. Such
controversial positions need much more validation.
2. She assumed that the Nag Hammadi material
substantiated that gnosticism was very early and that diversity was not
attacked until 200 C.E. (xxii-xxiii).
She needed some more support for this tentative theory. For a similar critique, see Hidden Gospels, ch. 2 by Jenkins (