This was a really informative look at the early days of Christianity. The Gnostic teachings were similar to Buddhist teachings, in that they felt that the divine was within each individual, and could only be reached by contemplation and the unwritten teachings of a mentor or teacher. During the early stages of a religion, this does not lend itself well to becoming a mass phenomenon, which in turn leads to the formation of most Christian churches as we know them today. As Pagels states, "the religious perspectives and methods of gnosticism did not lend themselves to mass religion. In this respect, it was no match for the highly effective system of organization of the catholic church."

Really interesting book for those interested in the beginnings of the Christian church, or anyone interested in the formation of any religion in general. ( )

reconsiders origins of Christianity

Een provocerende studie van de gnostische evangeliën en de wereld van het vroege christendom zoals geopenbaard door de Nag Hammadi-teksten. ( )

Elaine Pagels writes here a lucid and fascinating historical study of the Gnostic Gospels, among them 52 texts discovered by accident at Nag Hammadi, including the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Apocalypse of Peter and more.

She argues that Gnostic Christianity was overtaken by Roman Catholicism because Roman Catholicism was organized, and codified and open to everyone. It was more "social." Gnostic Christianity is a lot more open. She depicts the Gnostics as, in some sense, artists, creators, who express their own insights (their gnosis) by creating new myths, poems, rituals, "dialogues" with Christ, revelations, and accounts of their visions. Women are much more active in the Gnostic traditions. There's a lot of unorthodoxy. Some typical Gnostic conjectures: Eve is not from Adam's rib, but Sophia's daughter, sent to prod the cast-down Adam to life and knowledge. The resurrection is seen metaphorically. Mary Magdalene perhaps married to Christ, and was one of only two or three people to whom Christ explained the secrets of the universe. There are conceptions of the Creator as both male and female, and Creators before the Old Testament God.

Essentially, orthodox Catholic leaders, attempting inclusion, created a simple framework of doctrine, ritual and political structure that proved amazingly effective. Gnostics, on the other hand were more concerned with personal enlightenment. Gnostics tended to regard all doctrines as approaches to the truth, rather than the orthodox, which viewed their specific doctrines as the truth and the sole legitimate form of Christian faith. Self-knowledge is knowledge of God, to the Gnostics: "Why do you pursue the darkness, though the light is available to you within?" This does not lend itself to religion for the masses, for, Pagels says, "ideas alone do not make a religion powerful, although it cannot succeed without them; equally important are social and political structures that unite people into a common affiliation."

Although occasionally I experienced a twitch of unease about the Gnostics ideas of redemption and initiation resembling the excesses of evangelical fundamentalists, most of their ideas were so far afield from mainstream Christianity as to be incredibly refreshing, not to mention poetic. Gnostics seem to be more about questions than answers. As Pagels says near the end of the book, “All the old questions are being reopened--what is the resurrection, the role of women, who was Christ, what are the similarities with other religions.” The crucial question for Pagels is "what is the relationship between the authority of one’s own experience and that claimed for the scriptures, the ritual and the clergy?" An important question among many intriguing questions raised in this astounding read. ( )

A quicker read than I imagined. I was surprised/disappointed when it was over. ( )