Rating: 
Summary: hmm
Review: This book was the third Pagels that i read and i think the weakest. I don't understand how it won the Pulitzer Prize and is on the Modern Library 100 non-fiction list.It was interesting. I would say, though, that if you read Adam, Eve, and the Serpent and The Origin of Satan, Ms Pagels abilities become much more alive as she becomes much more focused in using the gnostic texts to analyze a specific issue in the history of christianity. I would not recomend reading this book after reading those two, but if you want a good summary of some of the ideas of the gnostics it is a good book. It is important to note that though Ms. Pagels is a practicing christian, this view does not enter a word of this text, or any other text she has written. She tries to take an objective perspective but it comes out to me overly secularized in trying to find fault with any and all orthodox beliefs, no matter the base.
Rating: 
Summary: Loved it
Review: this book was a fantastic interpretation of the early gnostic movement. It would be rather difficult to call Elaine a christian hater when Gnosticism is based on christianity and from the exserpts i read, she has nothing against christianity at all, if anything, she promotes it.
Rating:
Summary: simple recommendations
Review: Excuse my brief comment but english is not my native language and id rather prefer to be short. Basically Id just like to recommend to the writer who was so eager to criticize gnostic gospels to have a look at the writings of maybe the best psychologist of the last century: C.G Jung. Also, if he is really interest in some good reading, he might have a look to the critic Harold Bloom, whom based on what ive heard is the best english literary critic of the century. If he is still adamant in rash critics against the gnostics, well, go back to Emerson, Whitman, Blake, Goethe, and you might find there some good modern gnostics who will rather listen to the potential, in the Aristotelian sense of the word, God in themselves, than to the oppressively irascible God of the orthodox religions, in the modern and everlasting sense of the word.
Rating: 
Summary: silly stuff. downright nutty, idiotic, nonsense dressed up
Review: This book contains very little background or analysis of the Gnostic texts-just quotes a few bits and pieces in an effort to show that long after the execution of Jesus of Nazareth some people developed different ideas about his status. (If this is news to you, learn some basic facts of history before reading this silly book.) The thesis of the book is, "Some people in 350-400 a.d. had really screwy ideas about God--or, I should say gods, since they thought there's more than one--and about Jesus, and now you can too!" Pagels makes no serious attempt to demonstrate why the bizarre, internally inconsistent, and downright nutty Gnostic texts should be compelling or interesting. She assumes that the mere fact that they exist somehow proves all sorts of points about why orthodoxy evolved as it did, which is simply a non sequitur for those that are capable of recognizing one. Many other reviewers called this book an "easy read"-I guess this means it doesn't contain too many big words. If you don't require analysis, thoroughness, persuasiveness, or coherence, but just want an "easy read," this book's for you. Or maybe if you are one of those people who says, "I'm not religious, but I'm very spiritual" (which is just like saying "I never exercise, but I am very athletic") then this book's for you. Or if you find it sensible to believe that merely saying a few "sacred vowels" of special incantations will bring you enlightenment and visions of the divine, as is claimed by the Gnostic gospels (I'm not making this up--see page 136: "zoxathazo a oo ee ooo eee oooo ee oooooooooooo . . . " Try it at home, kids!) . . .or maybe if you are someone who thinks wearing crystals or magnets or other trinkets on your person will actually effect your spirituality (or anything else). . . or if you want to "find yourself" instead of seeking God, . . . Or if you just want the good parts of religion (peace, wisdom, transcendence, meaning etc.) without all those dumb old rules about doing good, praying, avoiding sin, etc. . . .or if you want to worship creation (e.g., nature, the "life force," "mother earth") instead of the creator . . . or if it is just too uncool to say at parties that you are into anything old-fashioned like religion and want to say something much more exotic instead (like, "I am SO into Zen Gnosticism"). . . or if you believe that "thinking for yourself" is reading an "easy read" by someone who tells you what nonsense to think when you think for yourself. . . or if you believe that thinking for yourself means questioning orthodox doctrine about monotheism, but not questioning the utterly absurd contention that monotheism is merely a political point of view, then this book may be for you! Pagels acknowledges that Gnostic accounts of the life of Jesus were largely invented. And in defending the texts from the charge raised by other scholars that they lack serious spiritual teaching, she simply bails out and alleges that the Gnostics believed true spiritual teaching cannot be written down. (Where did they write THAT down?) You see, it's a Gnostic thing--you wouldn't understand. So, the Gnostic accounts of the life of a real historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth are admittedly fictional, and they lack spiritual teaching (except for those magic incantations!)--then can Pagels please explain why in the world we are supposed to read this stuff? Oh, I see--because it proves that the canonical gospels and orthodox doctrines are the product of politics (whereas the Gnostic doctrines were not?). Hmm. Let me try to think for myself here. Maybe the canonical gospels won wider acceptance because they (a) at least claimed to be factual, and are largely historically accurate, regardless of what one thinks of their theological assertionss, (b) were written several generations before the Gnostic gospels (according to Pagels' own generous dating) and thus much closer in time to the events described, (c) were not written simply to update Zoroastrianism to appeal to the growing sect of Christians, as were the Gnostic texts, and (d) actually did include spiritual teachings, instead of saying that enlightenment is like jazz: "If you have to ask, you'll never know." Could that explain why the canonical gospels are deemed more important? Wait--that's way too boring--would never sell to new-agers who need to be fed silly nonsense like this Gnostic fluff so that they have something to think when thinking for themselves. Better come up with a more sexy thesis--blame it on a conspiracy of old dead guys, political schemers seeking rank in the early church so that the Romans would do them the honor of, ah, . . . feeding them to wild beasts or boiling them alive or crucifying them upsidedown. (If you can buy that, then Chesterton was right: when people no longer believe in orthodoxy, they don't believe nothing, they believe anything.) By the way, if you think Gnosticism has a kind of counter-culture chic, remember that Gnosticism is a well worn path trod by the chubby old men down at the Masonic Temple. Gnostics are as hip as Fred Flintstone and all the other Freemason Bubbas down at the Lodge. If you really want to think for yourself learn something about the Gnostic influences on the Ku Klux Klan (the self-styled "Invisible Empire"), the Nazi party, the Solar Temple cult (mass suicides), and other secret societies of the "enlightened"-most of which are/were led by charismatic and autocratic nuts like David Koresh and Jim Jones, and are so hierarchical and authoritarian that they make the Vatican look like a town meeting. You may even begin to understand why these Gnostic texts were tossed in the dustbin of history (to which they shall no doubt return, ere long). But then, maybe I'm wrong-maybe those incantations will work for you.
Rating:
Summary: A Shoking Expose of the Early Church!
Review: Pagels provides an insightful introduction to early Christian gnosticism and its historical context. The clarity in her argument shows that she writes for the lay-reader in mind. Nonetheless, I finished the book feeling as if my knowledge of gnosticism was left incomplete. Pagels only highlights some of the key elements of early Christian gnosticism but then relates them to their historical and political implications on the early church. This analysis provides a pleasent introduction to the history of Christianity and encourages the reader to reconsider his or her assumptions of Catholicism and the Christian faith. For that argument the book is excellent. I recommend it to anyone interested in the history of early Christianity and gnosticism. I'm still looking for a more extensive overview of Christian gnosticism though. . .
Rating:
Summary: A Marvelous Voyage to the Origins of Christianity
Review: If you really want to know about the origins of Christianity and the meaning of the word "christian", you should read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Elaine Pagels Presents the Gnostic Gospels.
Review: Elaine Pagels does a fine job in presenting the reader with the historical context surrounding the discovery of the Gnostic Gospels, and the "intrigue" that resulted in the tracking down of some that were sold to collectors, as well as the 30 years it took to publish them in a translated form. She also does a fine job in giving the reader a fine sense of the historical context in which the Gnostic Gospels were written, and why they were "hushed" up by the Roman Catholic tradition. This is a fascinating book that any Christian should read, as one can get a new sense of who Jesus was, and why Christianity ended up being the way it is now, and how it could benefit more from these early traditions and rites of the early Church.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly Analysis of the Gnostic Gospels............
Review: .....by a Harvard educated luminary in the field. In "The Gnostic Gospels", Pagels explores the implications of the 1945 discovery of the Nag Hammadi, a collection of early Gnostic Christian texts dating back 1,500 years ago and reflecting original texts written as early as the first and second centuries. These texts have allowed scholars to learn how Gnostic Christians viewed God, Jesus Christ, the roles of women, orthodox Christianity and the formation of the Church. Pagels further analyzes the distinct differences between Gnosticism and orthodox Christianity and shows us how it came to be that the Gnostics were condemned as heretics and much of their writings destroyed. She then takes us through the victory of orthodox Christianity and the formation of the Church. Her writing is illuminating because it shows us the incredible social and political motivations behind routing out Gnosticism and forming a church with a powerful and distinct hierarchy and strict doctrine. What is additionally interesting is that we see the slow evolution of doctrine and the origins from which it stems. We come to see that Church doctrine did not always exist from the very beginning of the Church, that is was not always honestly motivated and that much was excluded from what the Church ultimately adopted as the New Testament. We see how the orthodox Christians came to view Jesus Christ as having been a real man who literally died and was resurrected. We also come to see and clearly understand the slow exclusion of women from positions of even the slightest power within the newly forming Church. Each of these developments are part of what distinguishes orthodox Christianity from Gnosticism. Pagels, as well, takes us through early Roman persecution of Christians. Those who are well read on the origins of Christianity will find Pagels unbiased approach to the Gnostic Gospels and the entire subject of early Christianity refreshing. Throughout, she quotes numerous texts based on the writings of early Christian leaders, both orthodox and Gnostic and guides us to a better understanding of the forces that shaped early Christianity. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the subjects of Gnosticism, early Christianity, and religion in general.
Rating:
Summary: The Gnostic Gospels--an excellent starting point...
Review: This is the only book I have on Gnosticism, but after reading this author's interpretation of this early Christian sect, I look forward to reading not only other books by this author, but other Gnostic texts in general. A fascinating look at the Gnostics--and best of all, easy to understand for the non-scholar.
Rating:
Summary: another book whose title is false advertising
Review: This book was a huge disappointment. Most of the other reviewers have commented that this book is an easy read--it is an easy read, because it has no real content of any substance. I had hoped to learn a bit about the Gnostic gospels--where they came from, who their adherents were, what oral and written sources they were based on, how they were used to spread Gnostic ideas, how they varied and changed in different geographic areas, what sort of communities relied on them. There is none of this in the book. The title of this book is simply false advertising. The book does not even attempt to provide any sort of thorough description or analysis of the Gnostic gospels, their sources and authenticity. It simply goes through selected doctrines of orthodox faith and tries to show that the Gnostics had other ideas. It then tries to make the point, over and over and over and over, that there and political and social reasons, as opposed to doctrinal, historical, or rational reasons, that the orthodox doctrine won out. One never really does get any satisfactory insight into the Gnostic texts, however--only disjointed bits and pieces used to refute orthodoxy. Most of the bits quoted from the Gnostic texts are so absurd that it is abundantly clear why the orthodox doctrines were accepted and the Gnostic stuff condemned as lunacy. The political and social explanations Pagels uses to explain why orthodoxy adopted certain doctrines are downright goofy. Just one example: she claims that the doctrine regarding the suffering and passion of Christ was adopted as it was to validate and give comfort to those early Christians that faced the possibility of martyrdom by gruesome, excruciating death. As in the rest of the book, Pagels in interested in showing how doctrine developed on the basis of the experience of those building the orthodox faith, rather than on the basis of the experience of the person of Jesus of Nazareth or on his teachings. As an analytical tool, fine--I don't have any problem with skeptical scholarship when it is real scholarship, which is why I read the book. But anyone with any critical intelligence at all, if they think about this for 20 seconds, will realize that, as to the issue of the passion of Christ, Pagel's analysis is not only far fetched, but downright idiotic. It assumes that the early Christians chose to be martyrs first and adopted a doctrine that supported this choice. Surely, most early Christians avoided martyrdom, did not relish the idea of being boiled alive or eaten by lions to the roaring delight of the Roman crowd, and if asked to chose a doctrine on the basis of their own experience (as opposed to the experience or teachings of Jesus) would surely have been happier to chose a doctrine that did not encourage martyrdom. If one studies the history of religions at all, one will find that it is far more likely for a new group of believers developing a doctrine to adopt the doctrine as much as possible to make their life in the polity tolerable, than to find reasons to simply accept persecution with courage. When Mormons found that polygamy landed them in jail, they soon determined that polygamy was not an essential part of their faith--they didn't invent reasons why time in jail is well spent. If the Christian martyrs could chose between two equally valid doctrines, one encouraging torture and early death, the other encouraging getting along well with one's rulers, surely the latter would have been adopted. Remarkably, there is no attempt to get at whether the Gnostic texts might actually have anything authentic and instructive to say about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gnostic texts were written at least several generations after the canonical gospels. You would think that a book purporting to be about the Gnostic gospels would discuss this fact and consider how that lapse of so many years might have affected their reliability, their sources, their relationship to the canonical texts. Not a word on this subject. Really, the book just wants to attack orthodoxy for rejecting Gnostic "insights," but on the basis of the very weird stuff quoted, the book simply serves to demonstrate how uninteresting the Gnostic stuff is. It tends to disprove her monotonous thesis that orthodox doctrine developed for political reasons. One interested in the writings of early Christians, if one can't stomach the thought of actually reading the Bible, might better read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome--which were written well before the Gnostic texts, and are much more insightful and cogent for modern minds that require a dose of sanity from their religious texts--to get straight from the orthodox horses mouth, so to speak, why certain ideas were accepted and certain nonsense rejected. The fact that this book is more widely read than many of the early orthodox texts themselves is fascinating in itself. Just shows how orthodoxy, no matter how much more sound, coherent, inspiring, beautiful, and truthful, just isn't as sexy as any effort to attack orthodoxy. Just shows what kind of weak analysis passes for scholarship these days.
|
