The Gnostic Gospels

by Elaine Pagels

Selected by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best nonfiction books of all time

A provocative study of the gnostic gospels and the world of early Christianity as revealed through the Nag Hammadi texts.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, History, Christianity, Spirituality, Theology, Philosophy

183 pages, Hardcover

First published November 12, 1979

About the author

Elaine Pagels is a preeminent figure in the theological community whose scholarship has earned her international respect. The Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, she was awarded the Rockefeller, Guggenheim & MacArthur Fellowships in three consecutive years.
As a young researcher at Barnard College, she changed forever the historical landscape of the Christian religion by exploding the myth of the early Christian Church as a unified movement. Her findings were published in the bestselling book, The Gnostic Gospels, an analysis of 52 early Christian manuscripts that were unearthed in Egypt. Known collectively as the Nag Hammadi Library, the manuscripts show the pluralistic nature of the early church & the role of women in the developing movement. As the early church moved toward becoming an orthodox body with a canon, rites & clergy, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts were suppressed & deemed heretical. The Gnostic Gospels won both the Nat'l Book Critic’s Circle Award & the Nat'l Book Award & was chosen by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best books of the 20th Century.

Reviews

[William2 · Rating 5 out of 5]

The apocryphal gospels, discovered by a farmer in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, are here explained in the context of late second-century RC church history. Gnostic (gnosis, Gk: knowledge) Christians did not believe that human intermediaries (priests, etc.) were necessary for an individual to find God. For the gnostics, enlightenment was an entirely inward and self-determined process. Gnostic Christians believed that Jesus was not divine but an ordinary man with an extraordinary message. They did not believe in the resurrection of the flesh. They did not believe in the eucharist, nor did they have any eschatalogical beliefs. They believed in a higher supreme god and a lower creator god, Yahweh, the Jewish god, who maliciously made man in his image and demanded to be worshipped by him. They believed that "secret wisdom" was handed down to the Apostles by Jesus, esoteric knowledge which was not vouchsafed to ordinary believers but only to mature ones. The gnostics believed that through their way of knowing God they were able to exceed the knowledge of the Apostles. There is language in the New Testament to support this idea of Jesus's secret wisdom. For the masses Jesus had only parables, exoteric knowledge appropriate to the less spiritually advanced. Late in the book some of the techniques for achieving gnosis are reviewed and they are surprisingly close to those used by Buddhists. Though Buddhists are nontheistic what they and the gnostics do has uncanny similarities. Elaine Pagels shows us that there was no early Christian golden age. That is to say, an age that had uniform teachings accepted by all. Instead the teachings were far more diverse than they are today, and highly contentious. Moreover, the RC church could have developed radically differently if some of these writings had been accepted, instead of being purged, as they were, so that someone, perhaps a monk belonging to a monastery near Nag Hammadi, buried them in a jar under the sand 1,600 years ago. I found the book fascinating and fun to read. I recommend it highly, as I do her Adam, Eve and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity, The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans and Heretics and Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas.

[BlackOxford · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Power of Religious Imagination

The central paradox of the religious imagination is its perennial attempt to constrain religious imagination. Elaine Pagels’s analysis of the so-called gnostic scriptures which were accidentally discovered in 1947 is a case study in the practical consequences of this contradiction. That human beings can hate, persecute and kill one another over poetry is a considerably greater mystery than any of the spiritual narratives contained in these texts.

Orthodoxy means ‘right-thinking.’ Such an idea is not inherent to all religious thought. Orthodoxy is primarily a political not a spiritual category. Its importance lies in its organizational, or perhaps more generally its tribal, implications. It is a way of distinguishing ‘us’ from ‘them’ and really has to do more with what is said or written rather than with what is thought. Orthodoxy is functionally the constraining of thought by the control of language.

Prior to Christianity, orthodoxy did not exist. Religious imagination was unconstrained and its expression in language was unproblematic. However, the introduction of ‘faith’ as a central category of the Christian religion necessitated not just an obsession with language but also its precise control in order to protect correct belief. Faith is a linguistic rather than a spiritual concept. Belief is expressed in words. Words are therefore inherently sacred; they are superior to any reality. Orthodoxy seeks to enforce that superiority and with it a fixed symbolic interpretation of reality.

The gnostic texts of Nag Hamadi are remnants of what were widely circulated documents in early Christianity. The originals of some of these documents may be older than those ultimately accepted into the Christian biblical canon. They are heretical, that is to say unorthodox, and were condemned as such by senior Christian apologists as early as the second century. In accordance with the linguistic demands of faith, copies of these documents were destroyed en masse when Christianity became the official religion of empire. But some survived - interesting poetry seems to resist complete destruction.

The gnostic texts are nothing if not interesting. ‘Gnosis,’ as Pagels notes, roughly translates as ‘insight.’ And the insights into human character and the nature of reality provided by these texts are fascinating, certainly ranking with the most thoughtful modern fiction. They deal with “illusion and enlightenment rather than sin and repentance.” They presume that the source of what is usually called the divine is internal to human beings not existing independently elsewhere. And they accept the simultaneous, and necessary, existence of good and evil in that divinity. Not until Jungian psychology in the 20th century were such insights again publically expressed.

I find it appropriate that the fifty-two Nag Hamadi documents are written in Coptic translated from Greek originals. Coptic uses a modified Greek alphabet and transliterates Egyptian hieroglyphs into phonetic script. The association of the documents with ancient and mysterious hieroglyphics emphasizes their purely linguistic character. They do not represent the reality of the world but only our human attempt to deal with it. The difference is crucial.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who was subjected to Catholic school for 12 years, I've always been somewhat interested in all the Gnostic texts that didn't get included in the bible. So when I saw this on my girlfriend's bookshelf, I had to give it a read.

Chapter 1: Chapter 1 examines whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead or if it was a symbolic, not literal event.

Chapter 2: Chapter 2 covers the structure of the Catholic church and how it ties back to Peter and the Apostles, one of many church ideas the Gnostics challenged. It also examines the Gnostic believe that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament weren't the same God, something that formed the basis of Karl Edward Wagner's Kane series.

Chapter 3: Chapter 3 examines the lack of female symbolism in Christianity and talks about Gnostic texts that assign female characteristics to the Holy Spirit and other aspects of Christianity, like the creation in Genesis and God's traditional depiction.

Chapter 4: Chapter 4 talks about whether or not there were some shenanigans at the crucifixion involving the old switcheroo or Jesus faking his death or even Jesus not being human. It also discusses the persecution of Christians during the early years.

Chapter 5:Chapter 5 chronicles the fighting between the various Christian sects during the early years over their beliefs.

Chapter 6:Chapter 6 is the real meat of the book, Gnostic teachings and rituals.

Like the conclusion of the book says, History is written by the winners. It's easy to see why some of the things in this book weren't included in the bible and perplexing that some of it wasn't. Would it have killed early church leaders to include some pro-female content?

I will now return to my regularly scheduled reviews featuring robbery, gun play, magic, and monsters.

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتابخانهٔ نَجع حَمّادی
در زمستان ۱۹۴۵، کشاورزی مصری از اهالی نَجع حَمّادی، وقتی داشت برای زمینش خاک حاصلخیز جمع می‌کرد، خمره‌ای در دل خاک پیدا کرد. ابتدا ترسید که نکند مثل قصه‌های هزار و یک شب در خمره جنّی حبس کرده باشند، اما بعد هوس طلا باعث شد بر ترس غلبه کند و با کلنگش خمره را بشکند و در نهایت نومیدی ببیند که خمره پر است از کتاب‌های قدیمی. کتاب‌ها را به خانه آورد. بخشی را به عنوان آتش‌گیره در اجاق سوزاند و بخشی را از ترس پلیس مخفی کرد. اما وقتی در جریان گرفتن انتقام خون پدرش، قاتل پدرش را کشت و بازداشت شد، دست‌نوشته‌ها لو رفتند و معلوم شد کتاب‌هایی که کشاورز مصری پیدا کرده انجیل‌هایی گنوسی هستند. انجیل‌هایی مغایر با انجیل‌های فعلی که ۱۵۰۰ سال قبل کلیسا آن‌ها را کفرآمیز اعلام کرده بود و از آن زمان تقریباً به کلی نابود شده بودند و هر چه از آن‌ها می‌دانستیم تنها از طریق نوشته‌های غیرمنصفانهٔ دشمنانشان بود. و حالا برای نخستین بار این بخت را یافتیم که آموزه‌های عرفان گنوسی را به طور مستقیم از منابع گنوسی دریافت کنیم.

من
بعد از خواندن راجع به آیین مانوی و فلسفهٔ اشراقی، مدتی دنبال آن بودم که کتابی هم راجع به آیین گنوسی (فرقه ای از عرفان مسیحی با چاشنی آموزه های افلاطونی که پیشگام مانویت و فلسفهٔ اشراق بود) بخوانم، و این کتاب نظرم را جلب کرده بود. در اولین فرصت گرفتمش، و الحق عالی بود.

هننوز باید کتابی از فلسفهٔ فلوطین و کتابی از آیین مندایی بخوانم، تا کارم با این سلسلهٔ جلیلهٔ جذاب (پیروان افلاطون) تمام شود.

کتاب
مدعای کتاب این است که بر خلاف ادعای مسیحیت فعلی که می گویند مسیحیان قرن نخست یکپارچه و یک عقیده بودند و فرقه هایی همچون گنوسی انحرافاتی است که بعدها در مسیحیت راست‌کیش پدید آمد، در واقعیت مسیحیت از همان ابتدا درگیر تشتت و پراکندگی بود، افراد متعددی ادعا می کردند که آموزه های آن ها مسیحیت حقیقی است و قرائت دیگران از مسیحیت دروغین است. بعدها یک فرقه از آن فرق متعدد توانست به قدرت برسد و فرق دیگر را سرکوب کند، و روایت خود را تنها روایت حقیقی بداند که از همان ابتدا مورد تأیید تمام مسیحیان بوده.

کتاب سپس در هر فصل به یکی از آموزه های گنوسی و مقایسه آن ها با آموزه های مسیحیت رسمی می پردازد، و در دو فصل اول که بهترین فصل‌های کتاب است، نشان می دهد منشأ دشمنی سهمگین مسیحیت رایج امروزی با فرقه های گنوسی، هر چند بخشی بر سر مسائل اعتقادی بوده، اما انگیزهٔ دیگری هم داشته که همانا سرکوب مخالفان سیاسی و رسیدن به برتری مطلق در عرصهٔ رهبری و مرجعیت دینی بوده است. نویسنده تذکر می دهد که جدایی اندیشهٔ دینی از اندیشهٔ سیاسی که امروز برای ما امری بدیهی است، دو هزار سال قبل وجود نداشت و افراد در خلال الهیات آرای سیاسی خود را شکل می دادند. خلاصه ای از دو فصل اول را در زیر می آورم.

کار من با کتاب هنوز تمام نشده، چون در فصل چهارم بیست صفحه چاپ نشده بود و آن فصل ناخوانده ماند تا وقتی که بروم کتابفروشی و کتاب را با کتابی سالم عوض کنم.


فصل اول: رستاخیز مسیح، واقعی یا نمادین؟

نخستین آموزه، زنده شدن مسیح سه روز پس از تصلیب است. مسیحیت امروزی این زنده شدن را با گوشت و پوست حقیقی می دانند، اما گنوسی ها این ماجرا را استعاری می دانند از تحول معنوی و از نو زاده شدن هر کس که به معرفت خویشتن برسد و مسیح را ضمن تجربه ای درونی با چشم دل ببیند. در اناجیل و نامه های پولس و دیگران، عباراتی هست که هر دو نظر را تأیید می کند. پس چرا مسیحیت رسمی امروزی با این شدت اصرار دارد که زنده شدن مسیح حقیقی است و هر نظری خلاف این کفر است؟

مؤلف می گوید: به این علت که زنده شدن حقیقی مسیح، اعتقادی است که به کلیسا مرجعیت می بخشد و هر گروهی که این باور را نپذیرد در حقیقت مرجعیت کلیسا را زیر سؤال برده.

توضیح آن که: پس از تصلیب و دفن مسیح، پطرس حواری ادعا کرد که مسیح با پوست و گوشت زنده شده و او را به جانشینی خود تعیین کرده. پس از او حوا��یون دیگر هم چنین ادعایی کردند و در نتیجه شورای دوازده نفرهٔ حواریون که شاهد زنده شدن مسیح بودند، تبدیل به مرجع رسمی مسیحیت شدند و سپس اعلام کردند که مسیح به آسمان رفته و هرگز دیگر بر کسی با گوشت و پوست نمایان نخواهد شد، و به این ترتیب راه کسب مرجعیت را بر دیگران بستند، (بر خلاف گنوسی‌ها که به پیروی از پولس مدعی بودند تجلی مسیح در هر لحظه و بر هر کس در طول تاریخ ممکن خواهد بود، و حواری حقیقی مسیح کسانی هستند که این اشراق برایشان رخ دهد، نه فقط عدهٔ معدودی که دوازده حواری باشند). پس از آن کلیسا خود را جانشین پطرس که در صدر حواریون قرار گرفته بود معرفی و از این طریق با واسطه ادعای مرجعیت کرد. حال هر کس زنده شدن حقیقی مسیح را انکار می کرد (هر چند در متون مقدس اشاراتی بود که تأیید می کرد زنده شدن مسیح با گوشت و پوست نبوده) چون در حقیقت مرجعیت کلیسا را زیر سؤال می برد، از طرف کلیسا کافر و از دین خارج شده قلمداد می شد.


فصل دوم: یک خدا، یک اسقف

آموزهٔ بعدی گنوسی، آن است که خدای مسیحی غیر از خدای یهودی است. اولین بار مرقیون دریافت که خدای یهودی آن چنان که در تورات توصیف شده، خدایی حکمران و قانونگذار، بی رحم و مجازاتگر است. حسود است و نمی خواهد آدم و حوا به معرفت برسند و مانند خدایان شوند. و جاهل است گاهی از کارهای خود پشیمان می شود. در مقابل خدایی که مسیح معرفی می کرد که پدری مهربان و عطوف بود و سر حکمرانی نداشت. مرقیون این دو را دو خدای به کلی مغایر دانست، و توسط مردم و کلیسا به دوگانه پرستی محکوم شد.
اما گنوسیان بعدی، از جمله والنتینوس، دوگانه پرستی را از اندیشهٔ گنوسی زدودند و خدای یهودی که خالق و حکمران جهان مادی بود را مخلوق با واسطهٔ خدای مسیحی دانستند. در نتیجه هیچ اعتقاد شرک‌آمیزی نداشتند، ولی همچنان مورد حملات شدید کلیسا بودند. چرا؟

مؤلف به دو نامه از دو اسقف بزرگ مسیحی استناد می کند که در قرن اول و دوم نوشته شدند، و نظام کلیسا (یک اسقف، شورای کشیشان، شمّاسان) را انعکاس نظام آسمان (یک خدا، شورای الهی، پیامبران) دانسته بودند و اعلام کرده بودند که اسقف نمایندهٔ خدا روی زمین است و همان طور که یک خدا بر آسمان حکمرانی می کند، یک اسقف باید بر کلیسا حکمرانی کند. این دو نامه به وضوح نشان می دهند که مسیحیت راست‌کیش از آموزهٔ خدای واحد حکمران به دنبال انحصار مرجعیت در خود بود، و گنوسیان با مطرح کردن خدایی فراتر از خدای حکمران، به دنبال مطرح کردن قلمرویی فراتر از حکمرانی کلیسا بودند که در آن قانون و مرجعیت بی معنا بود، آن هم درست در زمانی که کلیسا داشت پا می گرفت و نظام سلسله مراتبی سفت و سختی می ساخت و مدعی می شد دسترسی به خدا تنها از طریق اطاعت از کلیسا ممکن است. گنوسیان از خلال الهیات خود می خواستند در برابر این انحصارطلبی کلیسا مقاومت کنند و از آموزهٔ اصیل برابری مسیحیان حفاظت کنند. به شهادت مسیحیان راست‌کیش، گنوسی ها رهبری هر جلسه از جلسات خود را صرفاً با قرعه مشخص می کردند و تفاوتی بین روحانی و غیر روحانی و زن و مرد نبود.

[Eva Celeste · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a classic. It describes, catalogues, quotes, and interprets portions of the secret gnostic gospels which were ordered destroyed in the 4th century after Christ. How, then, did we gain access to them? Some crafty monk shoved bits and pieces of papyrus into a clay jar and buried it, like a time capsule, for 20th century archeologists to discover and historians to argue about for another 16 centuries.

What do the gnostic gospels disclose? Well, read if you want the full story, but let's just say most mainstream Christians won't like the ambiguity of finding out that there are many versions of the life of Christ and what he actually said and, thus, the implications for his followers, and that the version (aka, the New Testament) we ended up with is the result of censorship by the government of the time, who wanted to use Christianity (previously a radical sect) to control them (hmmmmm, sound familiar?).

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

For over four years I occupied one of the cheapest singles in Union Theological Seminary's Hastings Hall. The room had been used for guests and, so, was larger than any other single, a wall having been apparently torn out. Consequently, it was large enough to accomodate both myself and my girlfriend, Janny, after she transferred from Grinnell to Barnard College a couple of blocks away south on Broadway.

I'd gone to Grinnell also, having done my thesis there on the subject of scholarly theories about the origins of Gnosticism. Consequently, I was excited to learn that one of Janny's religion professors was Elaine Pagels, the author whose analysis of the Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis had impressed me years before. Thanks to Janny's position in the department, I was invited along to a party at the Pagels' apartment, having the opportunity to meet the woman and her husband, the physicist, personally.

Later, when Pagels came to teach a course on Genesis at Union, I signed up. Although I did the reading and went to the classes, Pagels generously allowed me to do an unrelated term paper, "On the Procession of the Heresiarchs of Gnosis" which was a little encyclopaedia of all references to gnostic teachers and teachings in the patristic literature. Basically, she had afforded me the opportunity to read all of the patristic literature of the first several centuries of the Christian era, a body of material which would have been too boring to read seriously if I hadn't done it with the close attention to the texts which the project required.

At the time of graduation from seminary, her The Gnostic Gospels appeared--too late to read it then and, besides, I was deeply immersed in a thesis on Kant and Jung. The reading of it had to wait for some months. Of course, by this point, I was a bit of a lay expert and the book, after all, was an introductory text. Consequently, I read it critically, as a take on the dubious phenomenon. What distinguished it from such earlier works as Hans Jonas', other than her access to more recently available holographs, was its sociological orientation and emphasis on the role of women, both important additions to the tendencies of earlier scholarship.

[Colin Cordner · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a general introduction to the phenomenon of gnosticism, or to the gnostic texts themselves, Prof. Pagels' famous book is quite flawed. Despite her laudable attempt to recover a sense of neutrality late in the work, her analysis as a whole is afflicted with unscholarly and often frankly political biases. These are further compounded by the simple lack of depth or profundity in her theoretical analysis.

As example of the first bias, the reader can sense the palpable and obvious attempt to juxtapose the gnostic sects versus the proto-orthodox Church as an opposition between democratic versus hierarchical organization. The implication, of course, is that gnosticism is democratic and was therefore somehow more legitimate than the actual authoritarian structure of the Roman Catholic church. This is rather questionable, given the author's own assiduous admission that the orthodox Christianity was and is, in fact, more welcoming and universal in fact, faith, and act than the gnostic sects, whose members considered themselves a spiritual breed apart and above the masses of human beings.

This lends itself to an example of a chief theoretical defect: the lack of penetration into the originating experiences which gave rise to gnosis as a symbolic form, and a lack of critical analysis of that form. The substitution of "gnosis" for faith and reason in the classical senses is no small matter, and itself indicative of a radical break with both the classical philosophic tradition of Hellas and the theophanic traditions of Israel and the Gospels. The added aspects of severe alienation from and revolt against the world and the very structure of being (defining characteristics of gnosticism) also remain unanalyzed throughout Pagels' work. This inspite of the fact that these are quite obviously shown in the gnostic repudiation of the Creator and the Old Testament, and the sometimes implied, often overt, anti-Jewish sentiments expressed in the gnostic texts. Pagels mentions the anti-Jewish sentiments only in passing.

On the whole, the book is not very well executed, and is better understood as a well-intentioned but ham-fisted political manifesto than a serious historical, theological, or philosopic study.

[Zendali · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was a disappointment.
The writer is obviously biased towards Gnosticism, and the whole book was a comparison between Gnosticism and the ”orthodox” (always in quotes) Christianity. I don’t consider this book to be a good introduction to Gnosticism, because it has an ulterior motive to criticize Catholicism.

She makes all the ”orthodox” doctrines results of social and political issues, and never, not even once mentions theological reasons. I can’t remember when was the last time I wrote so many objections in the margins of a book. Halfway through the book I wrote ”this women doesn’t know anything about theology”. The writer leaves unmentioned any real reasons for why Gnosticism was considered heretical and just asserts her own ideas that priests wanted authority and to oppress women.

Pagels doesn’t tell anything about the roots of Gnostic thinking, probably because the researchers she criticizes in the beginning of the book (p.30*) were right? The book doesn’t bother to justify its claims; e.g. how an earth is Mother God not from pagan origins? (p.92*) At some point even the historicity of Jesus and the events in the gospels are suddenly just one naive interpretation among all the others.
If the resurrection theology described in ch.1 made possible for only certain apostles to have authority, then how could Paul become one the greatest theologians and have his letters in the canon? He wasn’t one of the twelve, or among the people who saw the resurrected Christ after his resurrection, and he wasn’t even one of the 500, he had persecuted Christians, and then when he converted to Christianity, he opposed Peter (Galatians).

At the end of the book, Gnosticism is even compared to modern psychotherapy, whereas the members of the ”orthodox” church only have to learn some simple teachings. Whatever the Gnostics taught, Pagels manages to present it in a good light. Even their elitism is favourable to the openness of the ”orthodox” church, which according to Pagels, welcomes everyone who is willing to submit to its governing authorities (p. 171*).

*page numbers based on the finnish translation, not the original english, they may not coincide.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found everything discussed within to be fascinating and couldn’t put it down. Very accessible and considering my mediocre knowledge of Christianity I thought it did a great job of explaining scripture and gospel so that you can understand the different arguments/points of view between orthodoxy and Gnosticism. If you are interested in discussions around enlightenment rather than original sin and/or how politics shaped the early development of spiritualism and religion of Christianity, this is a must read.

[Bill on GR Sabbatical · Rating 3 out of 5]

Published in 1979, this award-winning book is still an excellent introduction to the Nag Hammadi library, discovered in Egypt in 1945, consisting of 52 Coptic texts bound in 13 codices. Nearly all of the works are of gnostic origin, and represent the most complete record of this sect that flourished during the earliest centuries of the Christian era.

Pagels focuses on how these gnostic texts present strikingly different constructs of God, Jesus, and the church from those of the institutional Christian church that developed the orthodoxy that prevailed, to some extent, she suggests, because of political decisions favoring survival, including declaring gnostic beliefs to be heretical.

Chapters review a series of major conflicts between orthodox and gnostic beliefs, including whether Christ's resurrection was literal or symbolic, political dimensions of monotheism, the gender of God, martyrdom, the "True" church, and orthodox tradition vs. self-knowledge.

This is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the variety of beliefs competing within early Christianity.

[Fredstrong · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Nag Hammadi texts, containing the Gnostic Gospels, were found in Egypt in 1945. These codices were compiled in the 4th century AD, but the gospels themselves date to the 2nd century AD. The Gnostic teachings are quite different from those of the orthodoxy. The Gnostics had an egalitarian approach to the sexes. Sex itself was held a sacrament, and Jesus himself had a consort in Mary Magdalene. All this points to one of the most fundamental differences of Gnosticism to the Orthodox Christianity, which snuffed it out: God is ultimately male and female.

A second major difference is the consideration of the scriptures themselves. They were stories, and a fundamentalist interpretation of them was impossible. The very same sect of Gnostics could embrace books that gave two different accounts of the same thing. This was possible because the Gnostics were storytellers, not metaphysical historians. The truth was not in the stories, but in the goal of the stories, which was a direct experience of the divine, or higher spiritual states.

This leads us into the most important major difference between the Gnostics and the Orthodoxy; the Gnostics believed the journey to God was a journey within. The connection to divinity was present in the individual, not an exterior church.

It is easy to see why Gnosticism was not popular with the emerging Holy Roman Empire during the 4th century. If the church was to retain power, if Rome was to remain an empire in any way, it had to be necessary as a bridge to the divine. Pagles shows how the establishment of what became Catholicism was politically, rather than divinely, inspired. A must read for anyone interested in early Christianity.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a really fascinating book, and a great introduction to Gnosticism. It's learned, it places theological ideas in a socio-political context, and it's enjoyable to read. Pagel's biggest success is in the way she ties the controversy between gnostic and orthodox ideas into contemporary social and political issues and uses them to explain why orthodox ideas ultimately won out. It paints a picture where orthodox Christianity isn't the camp that won because it's ideas were any 'truer,' but because it's ideas were far more widely accessible to the social and political structures that predominated in the 1st through 4th centuries.

My only criticism would be that Pagels occasionally over-emphasizes the dichotomy between orthodoxy and gnosticism and skims over any potential overlap. While she does acknowledge that the overlap is there, she doesn't really delve into the issue. At one point she points out that while gnostics tended to be internalized and personal, they also made extensive use of familial and social language in their writings. But she never expands upon it, which is a bit frustrating. But this is designed to be an introductory book, so that's certainly not a large flaw. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the development of early Christiainty.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not surprising, a couple hundred years after the death of Christ there were different interpretations on what his life meant and what his essential message was. Christianity was becoming a hierarchical institution that understood itself as the guardian of the true faith. Beliefs and practices outside of the canon was consider heresy and had to be destroyed. A number of documents were buried at that time and not discovered until 1947. These alternative gospels show some of the different interpretations that were in existence at that time.

One example, some, especially Gnostics, interpreted the resurrection as symbolic – Christ reappeared as in a spiritual vision.

The essential difference between Gnostics and orthodox Christians was that Gnostics believed the test of true Christians was their level of spiritual understanding or enlightenment or knowledge (gnosis). The orthodox authorities believed that approach was too elite as well as too difficult to monitor, and instead required simple adherence to doctrine, ritual, and political structural – which proved to be an amazingly effective system of organization.

Gnostics have been called ‘religious solipsists’ since they were more concerned with their own spiritual development. They sometimes have considered those in the Church ignorant, arrogant or self-interested. Gnostics were seekers; orthodox Christians are non-seekers in that they were willing to accept the canon provided to them. (Yet you may recall even in the accepted Church cannon – in the Gospel of Luke, Christ is quoted as saying his followers must give up everything – family, home, children, work, wealth. . .if they are to follow him).

The texts discovered at Nag Hammadi (the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Phillip, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Truth and others) containing passages supporting the Gnostic belief in the importance of self-knowledge.

Jesus is quoted as saying the Kingdom is inside you. . .When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father. Pagels suggests that He is implying that the Kingdom of God symbolizes a state of transformed consciousness, not a place in the sky or in another world.

Obviously the religious perspectives and methods of Gnosticism did not lend for a mass religion and were no match for the highly effective organization of the new Catholic Church (modeled after the Roman political and military system) and based on a unified canon requiring the initiate only the essentials of faith and rituals – and it has survived twenty centuries.

However, others, such as William Blake (in his Everlasting Gospel) and Dostoevsky (most notably through Ivan in Brothers Karamazov) have identified with the vision of the Christ, rejected by the church, who desired man freely choosing the truth of his own conscience over religious certainty.

Another interesting side issue is that apparently women participated in early Christian churches even in leadership positions. But by the end of the 2nd Century, the orthodox Christian Church segregated women from men in church and no longer allowed women into leadership positions. This coincided with a market movement of the orthodox Church from the lower classes into the more conservative middle class.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A telling line that helps close out the book (page 147): "It is the winners who write history--their way." In December, 1945, an Arab peasant discovered ancient documents near the town of Nag Hammadi. These represent 52 texts of Gnostic works, such as the "Gospel of Thomas," the "Gospel of Philip," the "Gospel of Truth," and so on. The actual works were dated at 350-400 AD, with the likelihood that they were authored by 120-150 AD.

Elaine Pagels does a very nice job of describing the historical context of these documents and the controversy that they engendered in the early Christian era. The early Church leaders worked as hard as they could to suppress and destroy these documents. And, indeed, there was much at stake, as Pagels discusses the matter. Early orthodox Christians denounced these texts as heresy.

Among the central issues that divided orthodox Christians from Gnostics included:

1. The resurrection of Jesus Christ: Orthodox Christians define it literally as arising from death; Gnostics had another perspective. Also, Christians defined the leaders of the church as the Apostles and their successors; Gnostics demurred.
2. Orthodox Christians saw the church hierarchically--religious leaders and then the rank-and-file church members; Gnostics rejected a Church leadership interposed between God and the people.
3. Orthodox Christians trended to denigrate women; Gnostics saw God as both male and female.
4. And so on.

Pagels notes that (page 147): ". . .the discoveries at Nag Hammadi reopen fundamental questions. They suggest that Christianity might have developed in very different directions. . . ."

Whatever one might think about the specific points of the Gnostics themselves, Pagels' book does a fine job of outlining what the key differences were between Gnostics and Orthodox Christians. For those wanting to understand the issues at stake in the early differences within Christianity, this is an accessible text and well worth looking at.

[Mesoscope · Rating 5 out of 5]

This brief introduction to the Gnostic scriptures discovered at Nag Hammadi is instantly recognizable as a classic. It is beautifully written, deeply informative, and utterly fascinating. Pagels presents the Gnostics as representing various competing doctrines in the charged religious landscape of the first few centuries of the first millennium, competing against groups that would eventually ascend as canonical and orthodox representatives of the catholic church of Christ.

Pagels is clearly interested in historicizing the process of canon formation as a way of opening contemporary Christians to the possibilities of bringing modern liberal sensibilities to bear on the religious symbology of Christianity. She argues that the Christian church is not intrinsically opposed to an equal role for women and feminine images of the divine. Nor is it closed to placing primary emphasis on personal creative insight and experience as the basis for faith, as opposed to the reliance on dogma and orthodox liturgy. She finds considerable and persuasive historical evidence for her claims by establishing these as core doctrines of the Gnostics, who would eventually be exiled as heretics from the belief space of Christian dogmatics.

Pagels persuasively depicts the Gnostic scriptures as akin to contemporary depth analysis or mystical traditions such as Buddhism in their sensibility, evoking the well-known Gospels of Thomas and Philip to portray Jesus as a spiritual teacher who encouraged his disciples to look to their own divinity instead of deifying him.

Pagels argues that many of the core doctrines of the Nicene Creed evolved in part as a specific attempt to exclude Gnostic scripture from the canon, including the emphasis placed on the primacy of the church of the Apostolic succession as the vehicle of redemption over and above personal experience.

In one fascinating and moving chapter Pagels argues that the image of the crucifixion gained its central position in the first two centuries of the first millennium as a psychological projection and hypostasis of the terrors the early Christians felt at the very real danger they would themselves have to undergo torment and death at the hands of the Romans. The Gnostics faced less danger than their orthodox brethren and in their accounts the crucifixion plays a different role -- it serves as an illustration of the bodily suffering of Christ that left his spiritual being undisturbed. One can easily understand how early Church leaders who watched their own beloved leaders torn apart by animals and burned as torches in the gardens of Nero would be incensed by the suggestion that martyrdom in the model of Christ was anything less than an absolute sign of redemption.

Pagels could have -- and I would go so far as to say "should have" -- written a parallel chapter on the evolution of the fever-dream cosmology of the Gnostics as a parallel hypostasization of their own fears of persecution. Indeed, the most striking omission from the book is a meaningful consideration of this central aspect of Gnosticism -- its weird and paranoid view of a universe created by an insane God and governed by malevolent overlords. "Ialdabaoth" receives but one brief entry in the book's index, and "Archon" receives no mention at all. What is one to make of this?

The Gnosticism that Pagels represents has clearly been sanitized for popular consumption, with its many bizarre and problematic doctrines minimized, explained symbolically, or ignored altogether. This is rather unfortunate. Despite this glaring weakness, this book will undoubtedly serve as the standard brief introduction to the doctrines espoused in the Nag Hammadi library and should be considered essential reading for those interested in mystical traditions or the evolution of early Christian doctrine. Very highly recommended.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a therapist, I work with people from a diversity of spiritual and religious orientations which are different than my own. In this capacity, I don’t have (or at minimum, I defer) the option to simply reject or ignore these spiritual/religious differences. I choose to join with the person I’m working with in good faith.
And to whatever extent possible. I choose to appreciate and work within their spiritual/religious perspectives. As such, I need to be fluent in the religions of the people I work with.

This is analogous to working with people from different cultural, class, and political backgrounds and orientations. While not perfectly achievable in practice. Cultural humility and competence remain an important basic ethical and practical principle of the art and science of psychotherapy.

I read this as a step in an ongoing goal to (a) read and (at least basically) understand the primary texts of the world religions. And (b) to reconcile the cognitive dissonances I encounter with exposure to these texts and practices.

I’m not a Christian.

But I genuinely love and respect my Christian clients.

I am attempting to gain a better understanding of Christianity.

As a part of this process, I recently read the Bible in entirety.

Cover to cover.

And…

While I did appreciate much of it.

Particularly the New Testament.

Aspects of the Bible (particularly some of the more violent passages of the Old Testament) were confusing and unsettling for me. I’m attempting to reconcile these dissonances with further reading in biblical studies.

Reading this book was part of that project.

This is Elaine Pagel groundbreaking exploration of the lost Christian texts discovered near Nag Hammadi Egypt, in 1945.

These texts known as the Gnostic Gospels offer a radically different perspective on early Christianity compared to the canonical texts and doctrines of the Ecclesiastical churches.

According to Pagels the Gnostic Gospels indicate that there were no single unified early Christian doctrines and spiritual practices. But rather a rich diversity of beliefs and practices.

Pagels observes that the Gnostics believed that salvation came through self-knowledge and spiritual enlightenment rather than faith in the literal resurrection of Jesus.

The Gnostic texts depict Jesus as a revealer of hidden wisdom rather than a savior who died for humanity's sins.

The Gnostic Gospels also introduce the concept of a higher, unknowable God and a lesser creator deity (the Demiurge).

As such, the Gnostics viewed the god of the Old Testament as a “creator” Demiurge. And they view the god of Jesus’s teachings as higher god. This is one of the important differences between the Gnostic and Ecclesiastical traditions.

But probably the most important difference is in regard to the roles women played in the Gnostic tradition. Pagels asserts that women were much more prominent and portrayed positive light in the Gnostic gospels compared to the Ecclesiastical canonical gospels. The Gnostics give Mary Magdalene significant spiritual authority as a key disciple.

Additionally.

Pagels posts that Gnostic spirituality was characterized by a focus on personal, mystical and direct communion with god.

This contrasts with the necessity of clerical mediation of communion and worship in orthodox Christianity.

Pagels posits that the drive to centralize authority in the patriarchal Catholic church as the primary source of the schism between Gnostic and Orthodox Christian traditions.

As such, Pagels asserts that the Gnostic gospels were systematically expunged from the Bible.

Based on what I know about power and politics.

All of that tracks.

5/5 stars ⭐️

[Mackey · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Gnostic Gospels is a well written, thoroughly researched book on the gospels that were purposefully not included in what is now known as the "Christian Bible." These include the famous scrolls found in a cave and known as the "dead seas" scrolls among other writings - all of which have been dated and authenticated.

Having been subjected to an ultra-conservative parochial school education whose science and history never made sense to me and whose religious timeline for history never quite fit into that of the learned world, I struggled with those whose only belief is the common Biblical text. After reading The Gnostic Gospels I was opened to a larger interpretation of the texts, a different viewpoint, which then encouraged me to do my own research into these texts and the world's timeline. To say that this book and Elaine Pagels changed my life is literally an understatement.

[Miles Zarathustra · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're gullible enough to buy the idea that the Bible is infallible, this book is not for you.

If you're feeling like there has got to be more to the story that what you are told, this book is an wonderful starting place. Elaine Pagels is concise and lively in style, and her scholarship is excellent. Others have filled in with greater bulk and more voluminous scholarship, but this book (and the other I have read) get straight to the point. Her books are short and a good read.

The title refers to a sect of Christianity based on the idea that "Gnosis" (Greek for 'knowing') is the correct path to God. In other words, where the mainstream church decided that one must adhere to the teaching of the Bible as interpreted by the hierarchy of the church, the gnostics believed that direct knowledge could bypass all of these political structures.

Pagels explains in various ways how the church saw these ideas as a threat to their political power, which is why they were stamped out and all of their books burned... save the tiny fragments of text that survived in Nag Hammadi Egypt, a story almost as amazing as the texts themselves.

She also addresses a range of other topics (e.g. the wisdom of the snake in the Garden of Eden, and the role of Women) in an illuminating and entertaining manner.

[Ian Beardsell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This classic (1979) from religious historian Elaine Pagels not only acts as somewhat of an introduction to the ideas of Christian Gnosticism, but also makes the case how early church politics decided what was to be included and excluded from the Bible.

I find it quite telling how the church fathers took great pains to label works such as The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Truth, or the Apocalypse of Peter, as heretical and not to be included along with the traditional gospels that are familiar to us today. Indeed, where would the church be if we learned that the way to God is by searching within and that it is foolish to blindly accept the guidance of church officials and bishops...?

I also find it quite interesting how much of these apocryphal works are so similar to eastern religious and philosophical traditions.

If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are enough heresies in Elaine Pagels' "Gnostic gospels" that it would have gotten her burned as a heretic by either the Lutherans or the Catholics in the sixteenth century. However, it was in fact published in 1979 thirty four years after the discovery a library of Gnostic Gospels at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945 and two years after the release of a comprehensive English translation in 1977. Pagels succeeded then in being the first writer to reveal the secrets to the general public of the mysterious gospels in a lurid, engaging book. The tactic worked brilliantly. Her book won the National Book Circle Critics Award and she was launched on a stellar academic career.

Pagels begins by creating the impression that the documents composed for the most part in the 3rd or 4th century were close in time and authorship to the New Testament Gospels. She does this by highlighting the Gospel of Thomas which some experts have proposed might have been composed near the year 80 AD which would have made it contemporary with the New Testament Gospels that are now thought to have been composed between 70 AD and 100 AD. The similarities in the tales in the Gospel of Saint Thomas and the "orthodox gospels" are sufficient to make a non-expert reader wonder if the Gospel of Saint Thomas might have been composed at the same time as the four legitimate Gospels. I am not sure what additional reasons the experts have found for believing this to be case. I will only note that there is another group of experts who believe that the Gospel of Saint Thomas was composed in the 3rd century like the majority of other documents in the Nag Hammadi library. The key thing is that Pagels leads the reader down the garden path by presenting a case for the legitimacy of the pedigree of the Gospel of St. Thomas and then projecting it onto the remaining documents of the Nag Hammadi library.

Pagels it must acknowledged is very careful. She does not specifically describe any of the other documents in the library as being contemporary with the canon Gospels. What she neglects to do is to say clearly that a large number of the documents show very strong influences of the neo-Platonist philosophers of the 2nd Century.

What Pagels does do is to say that the Gnostics rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the body taught by orthodox Christianity but believed like Platonists in the immortality of the soul. In this way, she implies that the Gnostics were more rational than the orthodox Christians. Pagels then suggests that the orthodox Christians felt the need to aggressive preach the doctrine of the resurrection of the body because they made martyrdom a supreme virtue.

Pagels then praises the Gnostics on several other points. In her view, they accorded a higher status to the feminine essence in their spirituality and accorded women more authority in their congregations at a time when Orthodox Christianity was asserting the masculine nature of God and eliminating women from positions of authority. She also praises the Gnostics for resisting the trend towards a hierarchical church that the Roman Catholic Church had engaged in. Finally she commends the Gnostics for placing the emphasis of their religion on the pursuit of knowledge and more specifically inner knowledge. In this regard she argues that Gnosticism is very similar to Buddhism.



It is only in her conclusion that Pagels admits finally that Gnosticism was esoteric or a mystery religion that catered to an elite group pursuing individual quests. Gnosticism had neither the philosophy nor the doctrines to be become a religion that would dominate society as did Christianity. In spirit, it is dramatically different from the Christianity of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran and Evangelical churches.

In many places, Pagels provides great insight into Gnosticism for the reader who is familiar with the documents of the Nag Hammadi. For other readers, however, it has the potential to be highly misleading.

[Joselito Honestly and Brilliantly · Rating 4 out of 5]

How nice it would be if all young children in this planet would receive genuine religious education so that regardless of which culture they were born in, they’d be taught the different major religions in this world, their varied belief systems, their historical backgrounds, their evolution and their rituals. Then when these children come of age, they’d be given the freedom to decide for themselves if they would like to have a religion and to choose which of those they’ve studied they would like to belong to.

Instead, however, what we have now is religious INDOCTRINATION. In a Christian family, for example, as soon as a child is born, it’ll be baptized and be “welcomed” to the Christian world as if the baby, of its own free will, chose to enter this world and was welcomed by its denizens. Then as soon as it gains some power of the language, it will be regaled with biblical stories—mostly untrue, made-up and historically baseless—and made to believe everything in it.The child then comes into adulthood deluded, ignorant, close-minded, blind and, if the indoctrination was severs, sometimes a fanatic.

In an honest-to-goodness religious education a young student would know that the gospels found in the New Testament were just a few of the gospels written by the followers of Jesus Christ. There were many others. But religious groups are not immune to power struggles and schisms. The group whose diktats now form what is now considered as Christian orthodoxy prevailed while those others with markedly different sets of beliefs and rituals became “heresies.”

Some 1,600 years ago one monk, perhaps in hiding after being branded a heretic, got an earthenware jar, placed 13 papyrus books inside, then buried it in a cave at a mountain in Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. It contained several of the gospels of these “heretics,’ now called the Gnostic Gospels.

Had these gospels/“heretics” emerged as the winners in the contest whose fate was determined by pure accidents of history we would now have had a completely different Jesus Christ.

[Ken-ichi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Given that my atheism was birthed from a Catholic upbringing, you'd think I'd know a little more about Christian history, but I don't. Enter Elaine Pagels, Christian historian par excellence! I'd heard her discussing Revelations on Fresh Air earlier this year and was intrigued, so I figured I'd give her work a try. Well worth it.

For the uninitiated, the canonical Christian New Testament represents but a handful of documents chosen from numerous texts about the life and times of Jesus written in the 200 years following his death. This book is about a number of them discovered half a century ago that describe a wild diversity of ideas, most of which adhere to a principle called "gnosticism," which, to put it in terms that will make theologians cringe, holds that divinity should be sought through introspection, not through external sources, e.g. you don't reach God through the church; you need to find him/her yourself (or, as my friend n8 described it in tech terms, "the Bible is SVN and the gnostic gospels are git"). Pagels' thesis is "to show how gnostic forms of Christianity interact with orthodoxy – and what this tells us about the origins of Christianity itself" (p. xxxiv), with the sub-point that texts included in the canonical Bible were often chosen for political and not ideological reasons.

Big claims! Obviously it's sort of impossible to prove things like this, but Pagels does a good job of trying. If you're going to unify a church it's pretty clear that rejecting texts that are explicitly anti-authoritarian is a good idea, but there are some less obvious ideas, like the appeal of Christ's literal suffering and resurrection over metaphorical interpretations, or who Jesus appeared to first after rebooting himself.

Aside from the many wondrous facts, what interested me most about this book was that it presented more evidence that the spread of good ideas is not inevitable. Reading about the rise of feminism in late-Roman / early-Christian times was a bit like reading that these people flew around in airplanes: if they'd progressed so far toward the present era's state of moral development, why didn't they take it further and abolish slavery (and check Facebook on complimentary airplane WiFi)? My conclusion from Pagels' descriptions of church political machinations is that ideas are only as powerful as the people who believe them. Gnostics believed all kinds of things, but they did not seem to truck much with organization and political power. The orthodoxy did. They won the popularity contest and spawned an ideology that swept the world. The gnostics spawned a few dusty scrolls in an Egyptian urn, and their ideas were extinguished until others could think them up again.

It's also a bit absurd reading any of these texts from an atheistic perspective. All of them, including the canonical ones, read like a crazy person's website, or the preachings of a street loony. I watched The Master halfway through reading this and it was hard not to imagine Philip Seymour Hoffman intoning some of this claptrap. I had to keep reminding myself that presumably large numbers of people took this stuff very seriously, so it's worth trying to figure out why.

[Marvin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was already familiar with the Gnostic Gospels, mainly through the lectures and writings of Bart Erhmann, before I picked up this earlier book. However Elaine Pagels' study on these writings of Early Christianity is essential in spreading light on this topic. One of the things this book does so well is setting the gnostic idea in its time and how it was at odds with "Orthodox" Christianity. She writes on how Gnosticism simply wasn't equipped to survive amongst an alternative Christianity that favored structure and hierarchy. She also does an excellent job in describing the tenets of Gnosticism and the writings of various Gnostic authors and how they compared to the early writings of traditional Christianity. Pagels rarely writes opinion but ties her thoughts directly to the actual writings on the time. Nor does she takes sides, conscious that her role as historian is to present the facts no matter how controversial or unusual it may seem to our modern minds. This is possibly the first and best book on the subject of the Gnostic Gospels.

[Christine Giraud · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is about how, after JC's death, there was a struggle between heretic believers- those who believed in personal enlightenment and shunned a church hierarchy- and the disciple of John's beievers- patriarchal, hierarchal, congregational- and why John's side won. GG is based on the gnostic gospels which were discovered in urns buried in a cave in Egypt 1950. They had likely been suppressed by the dominant faction.

It does a good job describing how present-day Christianity evolved and, in a sense, how many other religions evolve, for good or for ill. The pattern is as such: leader dies; followers dispute what his teachings meant and diverge into different paths; one branch gains dominance and spends a lot of it's time exterminating the others. This is the same in Islam, probably also in Judaeism, etc.
cg

[Barbarroja · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un acercamiento interesantísimo a los orígenes del cristianismo a través del descubrimiento de los llamados evangelios gnósticos. Además, es un ensayo accesible para cualquier tipo de público, tanto conocedores del tema como simples curiosos. Cuatro estrellas muy, muy sólidas.

[JS · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another winner from Elaine Pagels. The interesting apocryphal gnostic gospels show a different early version of Christianity. As usual, she killed it. Very interesting. Very enlightening. Highly recommend

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a re-read (for Easter!); I can't recall when I first read it, but I'm guessing it's been 15-20 years. On that first read, I found this study of the early Christian texts that didn't make it into the Bible incredibly eye-opening. Many years later, I can see the flaws more easily; it's fairly repetitious, and Pagels bases her arguments about the Gnostics on only a handful of texts, even though many more were available to her (some make a sudden appearance in the final chapter, and you have to wonder why only then), so that you have to wonder if she's cherry-picking her sources. She also spends too little time, for my taste, connecting the Gnostic texts to their obvious kin in both Buddhism and in Greek philosophy; both connections get mentioned, but neither feels sufficiently explored.

Still, it's a terrific introduction to a story too few know, about the decentralized, fragmented, almost chaotic nature of early Christianity and its teachings, and about how what eventually emerged as Christianity and the New Testament did so, and at what cost (to both persons and ideas). More than anything, it's the story of how a version of Christianity that would have emphasized universal divinity in all humans and individual spiritual quests as the essence of religious life -- as well as one that made space for a Divine Feminine, a concept notably absent from the Abrahamic religions -- lost out to (and was ruthlessly suppressed by) the version we know, with its emphasis on a perfect God external from mankind, on deity worship, and on adherence to dogma. Pagels knows, and acknowledges, that the version of Christianity that emphasized order, hierarchy, and submission succeeded precisely because of that emphasis, running roughshod over what sound like squabbling packs of proto-hippies trying to "find themselves" (self-actualization is nice, but order, hierarchy, and obedience is what builds an institution that lasts for millennia). Ironically, the ancient and forgotten version(s) of Christianity that vanished with the Gnostics sound a lot like the spirituality modern seekers disaffected with organized religion long for; it's fascinating to imagine what the history of the West would have been if those Christianities had become Christianity itself.

[Scatterbooker]

Fascinating insight into early Christianity gnostic

In 1945 fifty-two papyrus texts were found in an earthenware jar buried in the desert in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. These texts are Coptic translations from Greek texts that were written by gnostic Christians around the same time as the New Testament. They are very different from the Christianity we know, though.

Gnostic Christians had many ideas and beliefs in common with Catholic Christians, but they differed on some key ideas. So much so that they eventually were branded as heretics and shunned from Christianity altogether, which is most likely why these texts were buried around the same time the New Testament was being compiled.

I believe that the key difference can be found in the names of the two groups. The Greek meaning for gnosis translates to ‘knowledge’ while Catholic translates to ‘universal’. So the Catholics cater for the masses while the Gnostics focus on the self.

World renowned religious scholar, Elaine Pagels, examines several of the key differences between the Gnostic and Catholic Christians. These differences include beliefs about Christ’s resurrection, structure/authority in church, the gender of God, the Passion of Christ, and martyrdom. She sees these differences as instrumental in the downfall of the Gnostics and the rise of the Catholics, particularly the structure of the church.

I found the Gnostic Gospels absolutely fascinating. It was easy to read and Pagels did a brilliant job bringing these ancient texts to life. I think it says a lot about human nature that the Catholic version of Christianity won out over the much more solipsistic and antiauthoritarian Gnostics were proclaimed heretics!

There are a plethora of David Bowie songs that could fit with this novel, but I’m going to go with his last one, Lazarus. Like the Gnostics, Bowie spent a lot of time researching religion, so his last words on the matter are the most appropriate.

[Kiarash · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب یک سری عقاید فرقه های گنوسی یا عرفانی مسیحی قرن های اول و دوم میلادی را بر اساس متون یافت شده تپه های ناگ حمادی بررسی میکند.
یکی از نکات جالب برای من شباهت زیاد عقاید با عرفان ایرانی بود از جنبه های مختلف از جمله تغییر چهره دین و محدود کردن و کوتاه کردن دست نهاد دین و مرجعیت دینی ارتدوکس.

در مورد سرچشمه عقاید عرفانی اختلاف نظر وجود داره گروهی معتقد هستند تحت تاثیر اندیشه های شرق آسیا این افکار شکل گرفته و گروهی ریشه اون رو در اندیشه های زرتشتی و از خاستگاه ایران میدونند.

[Chrisl · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of those automatic buys for the library that I took home to read like a librarian - find out where the author focused, check for issues that might concern some of the fundamentalist Christians that would be borrowing ...

Ended up reading it entirely and learning a lot.
Never got engaged with author's other works.