Gnostic Gnonsense:

A Critical Review of Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels

By Sophia De Morgan 

Eloquent and rhetorically potent, Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels seeks to explain the origin of Christian orthodoxy in terms of political and social dynamics.  The overarching assertion of the book is that, whereas doctrines that would facilitate the move toward institutionalization were labeled “orthodox” by the early Christian church, beliefs that could potentially hinder this institutionalization (i.e. Gnostic teachings) were labeled “heretical.”  Pagels attempts to rescue these Gnostic teachings from their ancient grave, and she criticizes many of the central claims of orthodox Christianity as being politically motivated. 

The first doctrine Pagels brings under political analysis is that of the bodily resurrection of Christ.  While she concedes that the early tradition, for the most part, affirms the claim that Jesus rose bodily from the grave, she then goes on to say that other verses in the New Testament lead one to believe that the resurrection was not a literal, physical event.  She draws evidence for this claim from passages such as Mark 16:12-13, in which Jesus appears in a “different form.”[1]  Since there is this ambiguity in the New Testament documents (according to Pagels), only the political struggles of the time can adequately explain why the bodily resurrection of Christ won out doctrinally over a figurative resurrection.  Pagels explains that, by affirming the bodily resurrection, the apostolic succession of bishops could be established and preserved.  Those individuals who actually witnessed the risen Christ not only were imbued with exclusive and irreproachable authority, but also were given the sole power to determine who should succeed in leadership. 

The Gnostics, who were excluded from this line of leadership, rebelled against the “orthodox” system.  Many of the Gnostics were disgusted by the idea of a physical resurrection and preferred to think of the resurrection as an opportunity to experience Christ in the present.  In fact, they claimed that internal experience or spiritual vision was superior to actually witnessing the events of Jesus’ life, since even the NT Gospel writers admitted that Christ’s own disciples were wont to misunderstand him.  This internal experience of Christ in the present is accessible only to the few—i.e. those who are spiritually sensitive enough to perceive it and fortunate enough to receive the esoteric instruction of other Gnostics who have already achieved the experience.   

While Pagels evidently admires those who rebut historical assertions with appeals to internal experience, such a subjective method of deciding truth is problematic.  It is reminiscent of a child who copes with losing a game of Monopoly by claiming that he really won the game.  “I have a secret rule that the rest of you don’t know about,” says the child.  “My secret rule is that I always win no matter what happens during the game.  Your ‘official playing rules’ mean nothing to me, because I’m above your rules.”  In reality, such a child has simply stopped playing the game of Monopoly, or really any game at all.  Similarly, the Gnostics’ appeal to internal experience as justification for their positions indicates that they had abandoned the “rules” for making Christian truth claims, namely, adherence to the historical facts surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Pagels quotes Irenaeus’ reproach that “every one of them generates something new every day … for no one is considered initiated among them unless he develops some enormous fictions!” (p. 19).  Pagels herself admits this is the case, noting that the “gnostics considered original creative invention to be the mark of anyone who becomes spiritually alive.  Each one, like students of a painter or writer, expected to express his own perceptions by revising and transforming what he was taught” (p. 19). 

Whether orthodoxy is correct or not in its assertion that “Christ rose from the dead,” it is still the case that a historical claim is being made.  It is also the claim made by Paul and the other NT writers, a fact sufficient to explain its acceptance by the church fathers.  Additionally, this historical claim neither hinders nor precludes an existential awareness or experience of Christ in the present, although Pagels implies that it does.  In reality, if the historical claim is justified, it could provide the framework to which the existential experience binds and the ground from which the fruits of transformation spring.   

While Pagels’ explanation for the acceptance of a literal resurrection over a figurative one is flawed, it is nevertheless much more persuasive than her political analysis of monotheism in Chapter 2.  Here her claim is that the battle over the nature of God in the early church was simultaneously a debate over spiritual authority.  Again, the bishops are presumably manipulating doctrine to affirm their own power.  Pagels quotes Clement’s and Ignatius’ declarations that the church hierarchy reflects the divine hierarchy of heaven.  Just as there must be only one God in heaven, so there must also be one bishop presiding over the church.   

This threat to the bishops’ power referred to by Pagels emerged from Valentinus’ secret tradition, a tradition that he claimed to have received from Theudas, a disciple of Paul.  Valentinus’ Gospel of Truth revealed that the one worshipped by the Jews as Creator, God, and Father was actually a lesser divinity—the “demiurgos”—an instrument of the true God.  This Demiurge, also known as the tribal “God of Israel,” constantly made false and foolish claims of exclusive power, much like the bishops who claimed to represent him.   

The main logical flaw here is that Pagels has converted the orthodox argument (“Since there is one God, there must be one bishop”) into a silly and outrageous imitation (“Since there can only be one bishop, there must be one God”).  This sort of “illicit conversion” is similar to someone arguing that, since it’s true that all dolphins are mammals, it must be true that all mammals are dolphins.  Apart from this fatal flaw, her argument fails because there is a much simpler explanation for the orthodox belief in one God:  Christianity emerged in strictly monotheistic Israel, where belief in one God had been proclaimed in the Shema[2] for more than a millennium prior to Valentinus’ secret gospel.  Likewise, according to the first century records, Jesus and the apostles all held the God of the Old Testament to be the one true God.  The bishops declared Valentinus’ claims to be heretical because his teachings went against all prior Scriptural revelation, including the letters of Paul, the apostle from whom Valentinus supposedly traced his tradition.  For Valentinus to defend his foreign idea of polytheism by asserting that Paul secretly passed on this knowledge is another echo of the child saying, “I have a secret rule that I play by.”  Moreover, it seems that the Gnostics (not the early church fathers) were the ones who fabricated traditions to lend credibility and authority to themselves and their “wisdom.” 

Pagels’ evidences turn against her theory again in Chapter 3, where she argues that the rejection of the Gnostic gospels from the New Testament canon had something to do with the Gnostic affirmation of female deity (i.e. the Mother god) to whom the Demiurge was subject.  Pagels would have her readers believe that orthodoxy rejected the “Mother god” based on the contrasting attitudes toward women in orthodox vs. Gnostic circles.  She supports her claim by pointing out that the orthodox bishops wanted to subject women to the authority of men, whereas the Gnostics were predominantly proto-feminists who often granted women equal status.  However, the diversity of attitudes possessed by members of each group (which Pagels herself acknowledges) detracts from her argument.  Furthermore, the inferiority of women is not a component of orthodox Christianity and is arguably antithetical to orthodoxy.  As mentioned earlier, the Gnostic gospels were rejected because they contradicted prior Scriptural revelation, which included the affirmation of one God.  Compared to the NT writings, the Gnostic writings were late documents that could not have been written by Thomas, Mary, Stephen, Philip, or any other contemporary of Christ to whom the documents often attributed authorship. 

The gaps in Pagels’ “arguments” grow wider in her discussion of the passion of Christ.  In Chapter 4, we learn how the majority of Gnostics interpreted the passion:  Jesus Christ never actually suffered because he was never really a human being after all.  Pagels endeavors to persuade us that the orthodox church rejected this view because of the orthodox bishops’ enthusiasm for martyrdom.  Of course, a far more plausible explanation is that, given the bishops’ devotion to the historical traditions, they accepted the eyewitness testimonies to Jesus’ human nature over the intuitions of those who weren’t there.  Pagels complains that “orthodox Christians insist that … all ‘straight-thinking’ Christians must take the crucifixion as a historical and literal event” (p. 75).  She is correct in saying this, yet she goes on to suggest that we can only understand why the bishops would have fashioned such a wild view by looking at the persecution of the Christian church of their time.  Apparently, martyrdom was a recruitment strategy on the part of orthodox Christians.  Justin and Tertullian both said that the sight of martyrs influenced their own conversions, because the sight aroused a curiosity about what could create such devotion in men and women.  Pagels quotes Tertullian’s dramatic declaration that “the blood of Christians is seed!” (p. 101).  

True, the bishops had a respect for martyrdom, and they undoubtedly looked at Christ’s suffering as a kind of model.  But Pagels argues that this enthusiasm for martyrdom, instead of arising from a look back at Christ’s sufferings, was what actually led to the creedal affirmation that Christ “suffered, died, and was buried.”  The flaw in Pagels’ logic is the same as in Chapter 2:  She uses an effect produced by an orthodox belief to explain the origin of the belief itself.  She might as well argue that Elvis fans made up his existence because they liked his music so much.  

In Chapter 5, Pagels presents the Gnostic polemics against orthodoxy, while raising the issue of whether the church is spiritual or physical.  Gnostics favored a wholly spiritual concept of the church, and they disparaged the orthodox Christians as spiritually shallow.  This fostered their tendency towards elitism.  On the other hand, the success and endurance of the orthodox church sprang from the rejection of elitism and the willingness to accept everyone “from every social class, every racial or cultural origin, whether educated or illiterate” (p. 118).  Nevertheless, Pagels notes, acceptance into the church required submission to the orthodox system of doctrine, ritual, and clerical hierarchy.   

Of course, the question of whether the church is spiritual or physical is a false dichotomy.  Orthodoxy, although perhaps emphasizing the tangible aspects of the church, does not deny its spiritual dimensions.  In fact, the physical and spiritual dimensions of the church complement one another.  Since Pagels herself finds certain features of orthodoxy unattractive, perhaps she finds it difficult to believe that one of the reasons orthodoxy outlived Gnosticism was that it presented an answer to the deepest question in the hearts of men and women, an answer that Gnosticism did not have. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, Gnosticism asserts that the most important answers lie within the self.  Pagels repeats the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, “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” (p. 126).  In many ways, the Gnostics were advocating a kind of psychotherapy, perhaps inspired by the sentiment inscribed above the temple at Delphi:  “KNOW THYSELF.”  While unraveling the layers of one’s own psychological profundity may be a fascinating source of revelation, it is a limited one.  To claim that self-knowledge is the highest knowledge—the knowledge of God—is to define the universe as orbiting a single ego.  In orthodox Christianity, to “know oneself” is to know one’s limitations and failings as well as one’s gifts and strengths; in other words, it is to know the truth about oneself rather than to fall for a self-induced deific delusion.  For an imperfect, finite soul, salvation must be external.  The orthodox church knew that this salvation was found in Christ.   Orthodoxy outlasted Gnosticism’s brief flicker because its answer for the longing heart was, and remains, vastly superior.   

Pagels declares in her conclusion that “It is the winners who write history—their way” (p. 142).  Ironically, she seems to miss the fact completely that orthodoxy “won” because history was on its side.  It is true that the social and political conflicts between orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism provided the impetus to formulate the orthodox creeds, but these creeds were merely synopses that affirmed both the historical data and the teachings of Scripture.  Although the canon hadn’t been formally established, the NT texts existed and had the weight of apostolic authority behind them.  Orthodox Christianity repudiated the teachings of the Gnostic gospels out of a desire to preserve the truth.  Pagels continually asserts that the bishops were concerned with uniformity of doctrine among the churches because they wanted to institutionalize the church.  However, if the orthodox beliefs already existed, then they couldn’t have been created in response to the Gnostic challenge to the church’s authority.   

Throughout The Gnostic Gospels, Pagels juxtaposes the historical tenacity of the orthodox bishops with the free, innovative spirit of the Gnostics as if to imply that concern with historicity and uniformity of doctrine excludes any spiritual vitality.  This does not follow.  Orthodox Christianity has been a well-spring of art, poetry, literature, philosophy, and more.  Uniformity of doctrine simply means the acceptance of reality and the affirmation of truth.  Whereas orthodox believers seek to “be transformed by the renewing of their minds” via these truths, the Gnostics sought to transform reality to suit their own intuitions and feelings.  But the path toward God is the path of truth, and it is the path away from egoism toward love.  Each person’s journey is quite unique, for each person has different starting points and rest stops, different baggage and travelling companions, different conversations and adventures.  But the paving upon the road is always the same:  It is the body of Christ.