Jesus, sex and Mary Magdalen
- Thread starter Penguin
- Start date
Hi pfw –
I recomended the Elain Pagels book simply because it offers a different interpretation to the Gnostic movement and Gospels than the one currently held by the majority of people and, far from 'rendering orthadoxy suspect or ill founded', does the opposite.
I would dispute that. She presents the orthodox line as snuffing out the spiritual. Her interpretation is positive towards the gnostic, but negative towards the orthodox.
There are many pro-gnostic theologians who do not find it necessary to impute orthodoxy, and as ever, put their findings in the necessary context, which is all-important. I think their approach is marked by a more reasoned argument, but there works are aimed at a scholastic audience, not the general public, so they do not get popular exposure – they are rarely 'sensational' so are only of academic interest.
I haven't got them to hand, but much work has gone in looking at Valentinus, for example, to recover something of his reputation, not simply as a gnostic heretic, but as a Christian philosopher.
Putting it in a nutshell she describes the Gnostics as a kind of 'Christian Mystery religion'...
Indeed she does, but she also implies that 'orthodoxy' ceased to be just that.
... one of their 'rites of passage' being the writing of a Gospel that - while not based on any 'real history', should 'impart and show a greater spiritual knowlwdge and understanding'-
Philosophically this is not acceptable now – it's surprisingly akin to Dan Brown presenting 'The Da Vinci Code' as 'fact', and it wasn't then – its simple subjectivism. The Stoics and the Platonists both accused the 2nd century gnostic sects of poor philosophy, and it begs the question:
Who determines 'spiritual knowledge and understanding'?
What is the benchmark?
In each case, it would seem the individual is the arbiter of truth ... what does one do when a gnostic gospel evidently does not understand the implications of the Incarnation, for example? The gnostics refuted this, largely on the grounds that in general, gnostic doctrine was dualistic, the flesh is evil, and therefore God would never become flesh ... so they revise the data they have recieved to make it fit their pre-conception.
Compare the works of the gnostics to the works of, say, Gregory of Nyssa, or Origen, and the paucity of their 'spiritual knowledge and understanding' of the Christian message soon becomes evident. What they do is interpret Christianity in the light of their own opinions, evident in the simple fact that no two gnostic schools taught precisely the same thing ... so if it was left to them, we would know less of anything about Christianity, with any certainty, than we do now.
As for the accusation of misquoting and 'mucking about with' some texts - if true and deliberate then there's no excuse for that what-so-ever.
All one has to do is compare her translation/presentation with the original texts, which are accessible online. They were accessible to her when she wrote the book, so the case is proved beyond question.
Thomas
I recomended the Elain Pagels book simply because it offers a different interpretation to the Gnostic movement and Gospels than the one currently held by the majority of people and, far from 'rendering orthadoxy suspect or ill founded', does the opposite.
I would dispute that. She presents the orthodox line as snuffing out the spiritual. Her interpretation is positive towards the gnostic, but negative towards the orthodox.
There are many pro-gnostic theologians who do not find it necessary to impute orthodoxy, and as ever, put their findings in the necessary context, which is all-important. I think their approach is marked by a more reasoned argument, but there works are aimed at a scholastic audience, not the general public, so they do not get popular exposure – they are rarely 'sensational' so are only of academic interest.
I haven't got them to hand, but much work has gone in looking at Valentinus, for example, to recover something of his reputation, not simply as a gnostic heretic, but as a Christian philosopher.
Putting it in a nutshell she describes the Gnostics as a kind of 'Christian Mystery religion'...
Indeed she does, but she also implies that 'orthodoxy' ceased to be just that.
... one of their 'rites of passage' being the writing of a Gospel that - while not based on any 'real history', should 'impart and show a greater spiritual knowlwdge and understanding'-
Philosophically this is not acceptable now – it's surprisingly akin to Dan Brown presenting 'The Da Vinci Code' as 'fact', and it wasn't then – its simple subjectivism. The Stoics and the Platonists both accused the 2nd century gnostic sects of poor philosophy, and it begs the question:
Who determines 'spiritual knowledge and understanding'?
What is the benchmark?
In each case, it would seem the individual is the arbiter of truth ... what does one do when a gnostic gospel evidently does not understand the implications of the Incarnation, for example? The gnostics refuted this, largely on the grounds that in general, gnostic doctrine was dualistic, the flesh is evil, and therefore God would never become flesh ... so they revise the data they have recieved to make it fit their pre-conception.
Compare the works of the gnostics to the works of, say, Gregory of Nyssa, or Origen, and the paucity of their 'spiritual knowledge and understanding' of the Christian message soon becomes evident. What they do is interpret Christianity in the light of their own opinions, evident in the simple fact that no two gnostic schools taught precisely the same thing ... so if it was left to them, we would know less of anything about Christianity, with any certainty, than we do now.
As for the accusation of misquoting and 'mucking about with' some texts - if true and deliberate then there's no excuse for that what-so-ever.
All one has to do is compare her translation/presentation with the original texts, which are accessible online. They were accessible to her when she wrote the book, so the case is proved beyond question.
Thomas
pfw
interested
Hi Thomas,
Putting it in a nutshell she describes the Gnostics as a kind of 'Christian Mystery religion'...
Indeed she does, but she also implies that 'orthodoxy' ceased to be just that.
I'd dispute the point that 'orthadox' modern Christianity is in any way a true 'mystery religion'-on the simple grounds of my own experiance. Any questioning or independant thought on the subject is simply stamped on until you either 'conform' or go away.While I understand and realise that in a mystery religion there are rites of passage, tests etc all of this is known by the initiate when they join. Other than joining the priesthood (which in the vast majority of Christian denominations automaticly excludes women) how does one get to become a recognised theologian and therefore take an active role in the 'mystery religion' aspect of orthadox Christianity as it stands today?-a path open to all initiates of a mystery religion?
Your points about the Gnostics writing their own Gospels are well made and I have no argument with your argument there- I just don't remember making any judgment on the validity of such an enterprise, or condoning such an endevor, (other than saying that Gnostisism in general was 'an attractive belief system'). The whole point of that was to point out the danger of reading any Gnostic Gospel as an historical document as they were never intended to be read as such by the authors and even the aurthors would be surprised that anyone would take them as such. (your point about Dan Brown is pretty close to my opinion- even I wouldn't lump the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls together as one group of documents...)I think we've gone of at a tangent from the original question.my initial point was that a lot of this recent interest in the posibility of Christ being married, having children etc comes from a misunderstanding of the Gnostic Gospels and what they are. Persnaly, for the time being, I still stand by the Elaine Pagels book; but will certainly look up you suggested reading etc.Thanks and regards. Phil ;-)
Putting it in a nutshell she describes the Gnostics as a kind of 'Christian Mystery religion'...
Indeed she does, but she also implies that 'orthodoxy' ceased to be just that.
I'd dispute the point that 'orthadox' modern Christianity is in any way a true 'mystery religion'-on the simple grounds of my own experiance. Any questioning or independant thought on the subject is simply stamped on until you either 'conform' or go away.While I understand and realise that in a mystery religion there are rites of passage, tests etc all of this is known by the initiate when they join. Other than joining the priesthood (which in the vast majority of Christian denominations automaticly excludes women) how does one get to become a recognised theologian and therefore take an active role in the 'mystery religion' aspect of orthadox Christianity as it stands today?-a path open to all initiates of a mystery religion?
Your points about the Gnostics writing their own Gospels are well made and I have no argument with your argument there- I just don't remember making any judgment on the validity of such an enterprise, or condoning such an endevor, (other than saying that Gnostisism in general was 'an attractive belief system'). The whole point of that was to point out the danger of reading any Gnostic Gospel as an historical document as they were never intended to be read as such by the authors and even the aurthors would be surprised that anyone would take them as such. (your point about Dan Brown is pretty close to my opinion- even I wouldn't lump the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls together as one group of documents...)I think we've gone of at a tangent from the original question.my initial point was that a lot of this recent interest in the posibility of Christ being married, having children etc comes from a misunderstanding of the Gnostic Gospels and what they are. Persnaly, for the time being, I still stand by the Elaine Pagels book; but will certainly look up you suggested reading etc.Thanks and regards. Phil ;-)
Hi Phil –
I'd dispute the point that 'orthadox' modern Christianity is in any way a true 'mystery religion' - on the simple grounds of my own experiance.
OK - but that's a shame.
My experience is that it is, absolutely, a mystery religion, but again, that's my subjective experience.
Any questioning or independant thought on the subject is simply stamped on until you either 'conform' or go away.
If that was your experience, then that was unfortunate. But it is not the case.
How else do we explain the differences between Merton and Mother Theresa; a St Francis, a St Dominic, a St Benedict?
No two saints are precisely the same ... no two mystics record the same experience ...
Might I also point out that the Church was a great supporter of the sciences throughout the Middle Ages, a patron of the Arts ... some of the greatest philosopphers were Christian, and some of them in Orders ... so hardly 'stamped on' ... of course, that's another 'view' that is ignored, and everyone bangs on about Galileo ... one instance defines a whole Millenia ...
I agree there is orthodoxy, and there is the defence of orthodoxy, and that is right and proper. Anything of value is worth defending, and worth protecting. What there is not is the view that 'anything goes'.
While I understand and realise that in a mystery religion there are rites of passage, tests etc all of this is known by the initiate when they join.
Well, they must have some idea, otherwise why would they want to join?
Other than joining the priesthood (which in the vast majority of Christian denominations automaticly excludes women) how does one get to become a recognised theologian and therefore take an active role in the 'mystery religion' aspect of orthadox Christianity as it stands today? - a path open to all initiates of a mystery religion?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There is not one all-encompassing mystery religion, so to become a recognised theologian you must study the religion of your choice, and offer your findings in the same way as you would in any other discipline. Membership of the priesthood is not required.
Your points about the Gnostics writing their own Gospels are well made and I have no argument with your argument there - I just don't remember making any judgment on the validity of such an enterprise, or condoning such an endevor, (other than saying that Gnostisism in general was 'an attractive belief system'). The whole point of that was to point out the danger of reading any Gnostic Gospel as an historical document as they were never intended to be read as such by the authors and even the aurthors would be surprised that anyone would take them as such. (your point about Dan Brown is pretty close to my opinion - even I wouldn't lump the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls together as one group of documents...)
Does that mean that the gnostic authors never intended their writings to be regarded as anything other than a work of fiction?
The term gnostic has a twofold understanding:
1 One is etymological, and means 'more interior' and applies to any form of interior knowledge, in this instance Divine Knowledge.
2 The other is historical, and is a term applied by European theologians to the various sects, that flourished in the 2nd century, who offered a markedly different interpretation of Christians Scripture, and moreover stated explicitly that theirs was the true interpretation, and orthodox was 'exoteric', naive or mistaken.
On the above first count Christianity is, by definition, a gnosis.
On the 2nd count, the axiomatic beliefs that most, if not all, the gnostic sects held in common are contrary to the understanding of Judaism and Christianity – St Paul battled them, as did St John, and St Peter ...
The notion that the world, the flesh, and the material realm is intrinsically evil;
The notion of a demiurge;
The notion that the soul is 'trapped' or somehow contained in a body which is essentially alien to its nature...
All these positions were carried into Christianity from whatever source they derived (Egypt, Greece, Persia or beyond) and so Christianity was interpreted to fit this pre-conception. What the gnostics did not possess was an open mind ...
... On the other hand, there are instances of Christian philosophers coming from Egyptian, Syrian, Greek backgrounds, and within that were educated across a broad range of religious and philosophical systems. The radical difference is that they approached Christianity with an open mind, looking for an answer, rather than looking to impress their answer upon what they found, and were willing to embrace the idea that 'all might be one'.
Pax,
Thomas
I'd dispute the point that 'orthadox' modern Christianity is in any way a true 'mystery religion' - on the simple grounds of my own experiance.
OK - but that's a shame.
My experience is that it is, absolutely, a mystery religion, but again, that's my subjective experience.
Any questioning or independant thought on the subject is simply stamped on until you either 'conform' or go away.
If that was your experience, then that was unfortunate. But it is not the case.
How else do we explain the differences between Merton and Mother Theresa; a St Francis, a St Dominic, a St Benedict?
No two saints are precisely the same ... no two mystics record the same experience ...
Might I also point out that the Church was a great supporter of the sciences throughout the Middle Ages, a patron of the Arts ... some of the greatest philosopphers were Christian, and some of them in Orders ... so hardly 'stamped on' ... of course, that's another 'view' that is ignored, and everyone bangs on about Galileo ... one instance defines a whole Millenia ...
I agree there is orthodoxy, and there is the defence of orthodoxy, and that is right and proper. Anything of value is worth defending, and worth protecting. What there is not is the view that 'anything goes'.
While I understand and realise that in a mystery religion there are rites of passage, tests etc all of this is known by the initiate when they join.
Well, they must have some idea, otherwise why would they want to join?
Other than joining the priesthood (which in the vast majority of Christian denominations automaticly excludes women) how does one get to become a recognised theologian and therefore take an active role in the 'mystery religion' aspect of orthadox Christianity as it stands today? - a path open to all initiates of a mystery religion?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There is not one all-encompassing mystery religion, so to become a recognised theologian you must study the religion of your choice, and offer your findings in the same way as you would in any other discipline. Membership of the priesthood is not required.
Your points about the Gnostics writing their own Gospels are well made and I have no argument with your argument there - I just don't remember making any judgment on the validity of such an enterprise, or condoning such an endevor, (other than saying that Gnostisism in general was 'an attractive belief system'). The whole point of that was to point out the danger of reading any Gnostic Gospel as an historical document as they were never intended to be read as such by the authors and even the aurthors would be surprised that anyone would take them as such. (your point about Dan Brown is pretty close to my opinion - even I wouldn't lump the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls together as one group of documents...)
Does that mean that the gnostic authors never intended their writings to be regarded as anything other than a work of fiction?
The term gnostic has a twofold understanding:
1 One is etymological, and means 'more interior' and applies to any form of interior knowledge, in this instance Divine Knowledge.
2 The other is historical, and is a term applied by European theologians to the various sects, that flourished in the 2nd century, who offered a markedly different interpretation of Christians Scripture, and moreover stated explicitly that theirs was the true interpretation, and orthodox was 'exoteric', naive or mistaken.
On the above first count Christianity is, by definition, a gnosis.
On the 2nd count, the axiomatic beliefs that most, if not all, the gnostic sects held in common are contrary to the understanding of Judaism and Christianity – St Paul battled them, as did St John, and St Peter ...
The notion that the world, the flesh, and the material realm is intrinsically evil;
The notion of a demiurge;
The notion that the soul is 'trapped' or somehow contained in a body which is essentially alien to its nature...
All these positions were carried into Christianity from whatever source they derived (Egypt, Greece, Persia or beyond) and so Christianity was interpreted to fit this pre-conception. What the gnostics did not possess was an open mind ...
... On the other hand, there are instances of Christian philosophers coming from Egyptian, Syrian, Greek backgrounds, and within that were educated across a broad range of religious and philosophical systems. The radical difference is that they approached Christianity with an open mind, looking for an answer, rather than looking to impress their answer upon what they found, and were willing to embrace the idea that 'all might be one'.
Pax,
Thomas
pfw
interested
Hi thomas,
pfw
interested
Hi Thomas,Might I also point out that the Church was a great supporter of the sciences throughout the Middle Ages, a patron of the Arts ... some of the greatest philosopphers were Christian, and some of them in Orders ... so hardly 'stamped on' ... of course, that's another 'view' that is ignored, and everyone bangs on about Galileo ... one instance defines a whole Millenia ...
It's a good point and well made but I wasn't making a generalised comment, I was still talking about my own personal experiance. And I also believe (although I may have the Order wrong here) that many of the Jesuits are well respected scollars and scientists in many varied fields...
I'd also say yes the Gnostic's would class their work as fiction if ONLY looking at them as documents that were ment to be a recounting of actual events- the points you've made about the 'spiritual truth' or otherwise a Gnostic would argue with, but seeing as I'm not a gnostic...<Other than that any questions I have would be better in a new thread or private disscussion as we've gone way off topic already...Regards, phil
It's a good point and well made but I wasn't making a generalised comment, I was still talking about my own personal experiance. And I also believe (although I may have the Order wrong here) that many of the Jesuits are well respected scollars and scientists in many varied fields...
I'd also say yes the Gnostic's would class their work as fiction if ONLY looking at them as documents that were ment to be a recounting of actual events- the points you've made about the 'spiritual truth' or otherwise a Gnostic would argue with, but seeing as I'm not a gnostic...<Other than that any questions I have would be better in a new thread or private disscussion as we've gone way off topic already...Regards, phil
Hi Phil –
Agreed.
One thing I did want to add was an apology on my response to your comment: "I'd dispute the point that 'orthodox' modern Christianity is in any way a true 'mystery religion' - on the simple grounds of my own experience."
My response was from a Catholic perspective, so somewhat unfair if your experience was of another denomination. It was unfair of me to offer any criticism of your experience, rather it should be of those who were causative of such.
Thomas
Agreed.
One thing I did want to add was an apology on my response to your comment: "I'd dispute the point that 'orthodox' modern Christianity is in any way a true 'mystery religion' - on the simple grounds of my own experience."
My response was from a Catholic perspective, so somewhat unfair if your experience was of another denomination. It was unfair of me to offer any criticism of your experience, rather it should be of those who were causative of such.
Thomas