Rating: 
Summary: Great and concise book on gnosticism
Review: This book is a great summary of gnosticism and its interaction with the early church. The author focuses on the political and religious issues that divided orthodox christians and gnostics and thereby brings to light some intriguing issues. One doesn't have to agree with all of Pagel's religous standpoints to greatly benefit from her research and insight into gnosticism and the early church. She gives a good summary of the thought contained in the Nag Hammadi texts and exposes the reader to a great deal of various gnostic concepts. This book should be beneficial to any thinking Christian who wants to understand what gnosticism is and how it differs from orthodox thought.
Rating: 
Summary: An Introduction Into Lost Christian Thought
Review: This book was first printed in 1979, but is still a very good introduction to this important aspect of Christian history. It is an interesting story of how, 1,700 years ago, Christianity was a religion that had many different beliefs. The formation of Christian dogma was a very political move to try and bring all of these beliefs under one catholic (meaning universal) church. The Gnostics were accused of heresy because they could not be controlled by the hierarchy of the early church, and thus were labeled heretics.
Despite the passing centuries, that has seen much of alternative christian thought being banned and destroyed, the thoughts and beliefs of these early 'heretic' christians are still being hotly debated in the religious community today.
A very good book! Recommended most highly!
Rating: 
Summary: Good primer on early stages of Christian religion
Review: The existence of this book is a testament to one of its premises - namely, that little is known about the (suppressed) works of another "sect" of Christianity (Gnosticism) that evolved alongside the more (what we now view as) orthodox variant (Catholic). The orthodox variant would have succeeded in erasing all records of the existence of the other sect had it not been for the discovery of the Nag Hammadi in Egypt. These texts show that there were competing claims made on the "one true faith" in the first few centuries after Christ. While difficult to read in parts, the book discusses the main areas of differences between the competing views, including their ideas on the crucifixion, resurrection, the nature of God and Christ, church authority and hierarchy, and the role of women. If human nature was different (as far as what satisfies people spiritually) or if events had unfolded differently, what we recognize today as orthodox Christianity would very likely be different. History itself would be different.
Rating: 
Summary: A stunning lack of logic & basic reasoning skills
Review: The "success" of this book is a bit of mystery to me. Perhaps the effusive "give me what I want to hear" motivation is alive and kicking in the psyches of the establishment.There is not one jot or tittle of real analysis or coherent argument within these pages. Pagel's conjecture and circular argumentation is profoundly tiresome. There is no sound explanation, for example, for the motivation behind the martyrdom of earliest Christians, given the context of her premises. Though initially looking toward Gnosticism with a warm embrace, I threw this book in the trash instead. Rather than learning more about Gnosticism, this book merely boasts self-invented, anti-orthodoxy rhetoric among misrepresented facts. Disappointing! If this is "scholarship", then the academic community is in some serious trouble. ((...)
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful initial attempt to describe this subject....
Review: In THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS, Elaine Pagels writes that in the second century C.E., Christians who followed the solitary path they believed Jesus advocated-of self discovery in the search for the divine-lost their struggle with orthodox Christians who interpreted Jesus' message differently. But for the discovery of their writings at Nag Hammadi in 1945, their experience would have been lost forever. Pagels suggests the orthodox church was so powerful that if these gospels had been discovered at any time earlier, they probably would have been destroyed as heretical material. Pagels includes the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches in her definition of orthodox Christianity (any group that holds the four gospels of the new testament of the bible as doctine). Unlike Gnosticism (which refers to the individual search for the knowledge of god within), orthodox Christianity was organized and external. Key aspects of orthodox Christianity included a hierarchical structure (priests, bishops and the pope); a belief in male supremacy; and doctrinal conformity (belief that god became man, died and was resurrected from the dead, i.e., the message of the four gospels of the new testament of the bible). The psychological reality is that most people are afraid of the unknown and prefer to have direction in spiritual matters so the orthodox approach had great appeal for the masses. However, in spite of the dominance of orthodoxy, over the course of the twenty centuries or so since Jesus lived and died, some individuals such as Blake, Dostoevsky, and saints like Teresa and Francis probably experienced something akin to the Gnostic path. Pagels says Dostoevsky in his book the Brothers Karamazov "attributes to Ivan a vision of Christ rejected by the church, the Christ who 'desired man's free love that he should follow Thee freely' choosing the truth of one's own conscience over material well-being, social approval, and religious certainty" - or as the Gnostic gospels put it "denouncing the church for seducing people away from the 'truth of their freedom'." I enjoyed this powerful book and highly recommend it to anyone taking the road less traveled.
Rating:
Summary: A provocative look at an ancient heresy
Review: Not knowing what to expect, I have to admit that I enjoyed Pagel's examination of gnostic beliefs. The manner in which Pagels compares and contrasts orthodox Christianity with gnostic versions of Christianity make a lot of sense and puts everything into perspective. I liked the way the author discussed the feminine element in God and spoke of God as both masculine and feminine. This was a gnostic teaching that wasn't readily accepted in the 2nd century, but which may be gathering support among biblical scholars today. In fact, it was the great German theologian Karl Barth who argued that mankind was made in the image of God, and that this image consisted mainly in our being created both female and male. Since it was God who said, "let us make man in our image and likeness," and since that reference to us is believed by most to be referring to the Trinity, God must contain some feminine element. In addition, Catholic theologian and teacher, Scott Hahn, has argued that the Holy Spirit can be understood as a feminine element of the Trinity. Although these ideas may not be considered orthodox by many, and are not readily accepted by mainstream Christians, Pagel's evaluation of gnostic teaching does make one ask some questions. Although I really haven't embraced such teachings, it does make one want to investigate the issue further. Another thing that struck me were many of the striking similarities between current Protestant ideas, and early gnostic teaching. The rejective of clericalism and the priesthood of all believers were all ideas championed by the Reformers, and were similar to many elements common to gnostic sects. In fact, the gnostics believed their spiritual growth was more an individual exercise and thus they did not need a clerical heirarchy to tell them what to do. This is so common among many evangelicals who believe they have a personal relationship with Christ, and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thus are in direct communication with God. Furthermore, the church existing primarily as an invisible and spiritual entity is a belief that both gnostics and many protestants share in common. I could list other similarities but these are just a few that I noticed while reading the text. I think the negative aspect to this book would have to be in Pagel's presentation of orthodox Christians. I for one, am glad the early church consolidated and organized the way it did because that prevented it from fragmenting and degenerating into thousands of little sects; This is a problem that modern Christendom faces today and one the early church avoided by structuring itself the way it did. Also, the fact that gnostics were so anti-clerical that they abandoned teaching authority altogether was another negative element. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that there should be regular teachers appointed to oversee the churches and that these positions should not be delegated by lot or weekly assignment, but should be handed on to trustworthy individuals who will rightly divide the word of truth. Also, just the fact that gnostics taught so many diverse doctrines makes it unappealing in my opinion; Some taught Christ wasn't human, some taught he was, some taught some portions of Scripture as literal, while others taught it was spiritual. Such a diverse body of beliefs makes gnostic teaching confusing and unappealing atleast to this mind. Overall, a nice book and good look at a rival Christian body from the 2nd century, but it doesn't do enough to convince the reader that gnosticism was in fact correct.
Rating:
Summary: Remains a popular introduction into the study of Gnosis.
Review: For almost two thousand years these so-called Gnostics have been silent allowing the polemics of their detractors to define our understanding of Gnosis (insight). These Gnostic testaments give us an entirely different worldview to experience and a different teacher in Christ. It would be difficult to inflate their importance to students of early Christianity and Pagels does a terrific job of setting the stage for this important drama to unfold. In the end, I felt Pagels consistently struck the right balance with the aim being to elucidate and not to convert. My highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Buddhists are Christians, too!
Review: I thought this story fairly balanced and enlightening, and less angry than some politically animated attacks on the early Christians. Pagels generally identifies speculation as such. She gives many quotes, and her scholarship seems pretty reliable. Her main animus seems to be against Tertillian and Ignatius. They must be flattered by the attention -- I hope I'm still being refuted 1800 years from now. All in all, I found this volume well worth a read.
But it's an odd book in some ways.
First of all, there are, of course, no Gnostic Gospels. Gospel means good news, and as Pagels admits, the Gnostic texts hardly even pretend to relate historical events. They are phony as the wild tales told about Confucius in the Zhuang Zi (and less funny), or the Jesus of Muslim Sufis. They make Jesus sound like Apollonius of Tyana or Sai Baba. There is obviously a market for making Christ a less lonely figure in world religion. Pagels presents the orthodox and Gnostic faiths as equally legitimate. "Without denying the resurrection," the Gnostics "reject the literal interpretation." What does that mean? "Without denying that I ate all my dinner, I do not claim to have done so literally. Now, can I have desert?" Pagels wants us to think that the "orthodox" believed in the resurrection because it provided the basis, somehow, for apostolic power. "What we do know as a historical fact is that certain disciples -- notably Peter -- claimed that the resurrection had happened." But actually, the Gospels credit a group of powerless women with seeing Jesus first. All four Gospels, almost every sermon recorded in the Book of Acts by Peter or Paul, and quite a bit of the writings of Paul, focus on the resurrection of Jesus. This claim got many of them killed. Pagel's argument that, since a rag-tag group of esoteric mystics who lived elsewhere a hundred years later doubted those accounts, therefore there was "controversy" on the subject, and early Christians could only have been motivated by desire for power to believe the people who were actually near the event, is exceedingly odd.
Pagels justifies her view by downplaying the historicity of the Gospels. She claims that few modern Bible scholars "believe that contemporaries of Jesus actually wrote the New Testament gospels." This is not so. Jesus' contemporaries could easily have lived well past the time at which even many skeptical scholars say the Gospels were written. "Can we find any actual, historical reasons why these gnostic writings were suppressed?" Pagels asks. Sure, just read the things. "For the first time, the heretics can speak for themselves." Not a moment too soon, from the orthodox perspective. Giving the Gnostics air time is the best way to demonstrate the wisdom of those who excluded them from the canon. In a comparative study I made of Thomas, the Gospels, and other ancient literature, I found far fewer marks of historical authenticity or similarity to the Gospels in Thomas than any other documents. Of 45 characteristics the Gospels shared, many having to do with historical reliability, Thomas shared only 5; less than almost any other text I studied, even texts from China. Pagels herself notes a few of the differences between the real Gospels and the Gnostics. She admits the Gnostics are late, distant, and a little spacey. So why didn't those darn Christians publish their manuscripts? Must have been a political conspiracy!
Pagels might more reasonably have arranged the facts here into an argument like this. Religions evolve. They sometimes split into competing lineages, exaggerate differences, attack one another, and lose valuable elements from their original formulation. Both 'orthodox' and Gnostic should have listened to Jesus more carefully, since their errors arise from disobedience to the Gospels, their wisdom in following the Gospels. (Something similar happened to Confucianism after Confucius.)
'Orthodox' Christians, however, held on to a belief in historicity and in the genuine words of Jesus, rather than diluting them with shamanistic additions that would have made Christianity indistinguishable from a bhakti cult of Hinduism. This had useful consequences. For however mysogenist or authoritarian some early Christians may have been, it was the Christian church that began developing institutions of pluralistic freedom in the Middle Ages, and ultimately democracy. Similarly, the status of women is highest in the world today precisely in countries with an 'orthodox' Christian heritage. So some part of Jesus' message must ultimately have sifted through. author, Jesus and the Religions of Man
Rating:
Summary: A fine study
Review: This book should have a place on bookshelves next to the Nag Hammadi Library and other works of early Christianity for those interested in those crucial years following the establishment of Christian Canon. The coincidence of their discovery in Egypt at almost the same moment in history as the Dead Sea Scrolls is intriguing. Pagels work goes a long way in the right direction to help the reader understand the context and the meaning of these priceless documents, buried during the first moments of the long history of Christians murdering Christians over religious doctrine. The Nag Hammadi codices represent the seed of the Spanish Inquisitition, the Crusades, the 19th Century Christian atrocities against Mormons. This book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand what happened to Christ and Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: A Different Take on Christianity
Review: Elaine Pagels is a highly reputed scholar who has devoted a lifetime to the study of the Nag Hammadi. In this very accessible yet detailed account, Pagels examines four basic principles of Christianity--the Resurrection, the Crucifixion, the notion of the church, and the role of women--and explains the alternative views of these issues presented in these "hidden" writings. Gnosticism was a less-centralized, more mystical approach to Christianity that emphasized the search for truth and knowledge in oneself. For this reason, gnostics disagreed that bishops and priests were the source of truth and that the Church was the path to Salvation. Gnostics were likely to have several different interpretations of an event like the Resurrection, and viewed all of these as legitimate paths to the true meaning. Gnostics also were more likely to recognize the feminine aspects of spirituality and give women a greater role in worship. Many of these beliefs were labeled as heresy by the mainstream church and the gnostics were slowly supplanted by the Orthodox Christians. Pagels speculates at length on why the more mainstream beliefs won out, based upon the culture and politics of the time. These considerations in her view dictated which writings became the New Testament and which were repressed. What is striking about this book is that the view of gnosticism Pagels presents seems very modern--the search for truth as an individual quest, the importance of women and their role, the rejection of hierarchy that has become so problematic in the modern Catholic Church. One wonders what would have happened if the decisions on which texts were correct and which were heresy had come out differently. Pagels nevertheless views the establishment of the hierarchical Church as a positive development, and wonders if Christianity would have survived if the more mystical, less structured, individualized gnostic approach had won out. I'm not so sure--many of the world's great religions--Buddhism is a notable example--have survived for thousands of years in just this form. Pagels book is thought-provoking and extremely valuable for any student of Christianity, no matter where your personal views lie.
|
