Professor Elaine Pagels was given an honorary “Doctor of Laws” by Harvard University this June. Her qualifications are elegantly stated as: Bold expositor of the Gnostic Gospels, reading ancient scriptures anew, a scholar transcending tradition’s constraints to bring forth books of revelation.
Behind the flowery language of academic flattery is Pagels’ life-long promotion of heresy. Early in her life she identified with biblical Christianity, later left Evangelicalism and in her academic work moved to a radical rejection of Christian orthodoxy. As an “objective historian,” Elaine Pagels, “above the fray,” attempted to rehabilitate the Gnostic “Christians,” who resurfaced in history when many of their ancient texts were discovered in 1945. Pagels portrayed them as forgotten heroes of an old class war between the politically-motivated orthodox, patriarchal bishops and their hapless spiritual victims. She presents Gnosticism as “a wider valid expression of Christianity,” and the Gnostic gospels as “complementary” to the canonical ones and just as ancient. Our Doctor of Laws does not raise the key question: Can we mix oil and water—or biblical revelation and paganism, or Twoism or Oneism?
The most renowned and most quoted experts on Gnosticism, two German scholars, Hans Jonas and Kurt Rudolph (no tender Evangelicals), reject the notion that Gnosticism is a form of Christianity. For Jonas, Gnosticism is an ancient form of modern existentialism. For Rudolph, it is an independent world religion, “a parasite prosper[ing] on the soil of a host religion [Christianity],” which, in its essence, was “monistic,” that is Oneist. This modern, scholarly view accords perfectly with that of the Church Father, Hippolytus (AD 170–236) who saw firsthand how the so-called “Christian” Gnostics of his day sought “the wisdom of the pagans” by attending the ceremonies of the Isis-worshiping mystery cults in order to understand, as they said, “the universal mystery.” The Egyptian Goddess Isis, goddess of the underworld and divine essence of all things natural, leaves no place for a Creator, but instead reveals the “universal mystery.” Gnostic beliefs are a poisonous pagan soup.
So Pagels’ approach is not as full, fair and tolerant as it implicitly claims. She works under the guise of a “neutral” historian, though she is openly and deliberately explicit in her reaction against the fundamental notions of orthodoxy. She decries belief in a canonical Bible, a patriarchal God, a hierarchical, gender-distinguishing Church, an accusatory Law and a final judgment. Instead, she holds to another particular understanding of religious truth which she has relentlessly pursued throughout her professional life. She is dedicated to blending Christianity and Buddhism. Pagels has collaborated with the Association for Transpersonal Psychology, a discipline devoted to the study and promotion of esoteric, paranormal spirituality and healing. These religious experiences, as well as clear statements in her books, present a limpid picture of her theological prejudices. She believes that religions are essentially the same, that theological conflicts are about power, not truth, and that the answer to all human problems lies in bringing the religious traditions together.
Here is a translation of the coded language in the description of her merits. “Bold expositor of the Gnostic Gospels” means that she has abandoned belief in the Synoptic Gospels as trustworthy revelation from the God who created the world. “Reading Scriptures anew” means that she has raised the Gnostic Gospels to the level of divine inspiration, while denigrating the revelatory power of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. She has “transcended traditional constraints” means that she has abandoned orthodox Christianity in order to promote the same “universal mystery” that attracted the ancient Gnostics, and which Pagels now finds in Buddhism. In both Buddhist and Gnosticism we look inward to seek the divine. Her books of revelation show her to be on a spiritual quest rather than on a search for objective history. She seeks to reveal that Buddhism and Eastern mysticism are valid forms of the original teachings of Jesus. This is the new revelation of religious inter-spirituality. Little wonder, in our day of interfaith and all-is-one spirituality, that such an “achievement” would be rewarded by a Doctor of Laws from Harvard—because, even if the scholarly reconstruction has been a notable failure, the oxymoronic notion of “Christian Buddhism” doubtless has a bright and promising future.
Hi Peter
Brilliant article – what would we do without the insights you receive from the Lord! Keep exposing the lie. Look forward to seeing you in September at the Understanding the Times conference here in Romford, UK.
I think it is important to distinguish between heretical Gnosticism and gnosis as such. Gnosis is simply spiritual discernment. But, the late antique heresy was featured by a dualistic metaphysic. Orthodox Christianity is “dualistic” only insofar as we distinguish the Creator and created. But the Faith always insisted on the goodness of creation. The contemporary spirituality culture rallies around the doctrine that “all is one”. How should a traditional Christian respond to this? I confess that I’m partial to mystical theology- so I walk the line of orthodoxy. If the new ager means that all is one substance, than we have pantheism. But, I think that the traditional Christian can accept that statement if we mean that “all is one” in the sense that all depends on and is derivative of the One. I think the problem of the “one” and the “many” can only be resolved by thinking in terms of “degrees” of Reality. Is the world real ? Well, yes. However, creation is utterly unreal in relation to the Divine.
Thoughts?
Hi Dr. Jones,
I just discovered that you’ve written quite extensively on this subject. I will explore your materials. Thanx!
“Her qualifications are elegantly stated as: Bold expositor of the Gnostic Gospels, reading ancient scriptures anew, a scholar transcending tradition’s constraints to bring forth books of revelation.”
Ms. Pagels argues, on the contrary, that she reviews a Christian exegetical tradition older than the orthodox.
“As an ‘objective historian,’ Elaine Pagels, ‘above the fray,’ attempted to rehabilitate the Gnostic ‘Christians,’ who resurfaced in history when many of their ancient texts were discovered in 1945.”
Can you cite anywhere Ms. Pagels has claimed to be an “objective historian,” or “above the fray?” If you can’t, your use of quotations around these phrases may seriously misleads.
“Pagels portrayed them as forgotten heroes of an old class war between the politically-motivated orthodox, patriarchal bishops and their hapless spiritual victims.”
Ms. Pagels candidly acknowledges in “The Gnostic Gospels” that Gnostic sects did a share of persecuting, just as did the orthodox do their share. She never portrays the Gnostics as “hapless spiritual victims;” she portrays them as the defeated in a mutual theological conflagration.
Or were they defeated? If Paul, as Ms. Pagels claims, was in fact the Gnostic apostle early Christian figures identify him as, it may be that they “lost the war in order to win it…”.
” Our Doctor of Laws does not raise the key question: Can we mix oil and water—or biblical revelation and paganism, or Twoism or Oneism?”
I have to be candid, though it pains me to be insulting. It really appears you’ve understood nothing of Gnosticism or of Pagels’ work . Do you have even the vaguest sense of the irony in your insinuation she’s a pharisee?
First off, the pharisees represented the orthodox view in Christ’s day; Gnosticism today plays a role more akin that of upstart early Christianity. YOU, as an advocate of the orthodox view, and an explicit supporter of an “accusatory law” play the part of the pharisee here. Especially because Gnosticism explicitly rejects the power of that accusatory law over those born of spirit.
Have you so much as scanned “The Gnostic Paul?” Virtually the entire book discusses how Gnostic exegetes mixed “oil and water” in interpreting Paul’s letters as dual messages to the pneumatics and the psychics. Adding to the irony, Gnostic exegesis of Paul’s letters foretells the ultimate reconciliation of “oil and water” in the union of the pneumatic and the psychic.
“[One of] [t]he most renowned and most quoted experts on Gnosticism… Hans Jonas… reject[s] the notion that Gnosticism is a form of Christianity. For Jonas, Gnosticism is an ancient form of modern existentialism.”
Four words: Christian Existentialist Soren Kierkegaard. Was Kierkegaard of the body of universal Christendom? If so, there’s nothing so fatally incompatible between Christianity and Existentialism as to render them mutually exclusive.
“The Egyptian Goddess Isis, goddess of the underworld and divine essence of all things natural, leaves no place for a Creator, but instead reveals the ‘universal mystery.'”
Tau Stephanus Hoeller of the Ecclessia Gnostica in Los Angeles finds thoroughly annoying the conflation of Sophia with assorted New Age goddess religions.
But taking as true your proposition regarding Sophia’s identity with Isis, you’re going to have to explain how the existence of a goddess “leaves no place for a Creator.” Logically, a Creator could have created Isis or Sophia. The notion of one high ultimate God above numerous lesser gods is called “Henotheism,” and is nothing new.
There’s also nothing incompatible with the existence of a Creator and a “universal mystery.” Certainly St. Paul doesn’t think so. Ephesians 3:4-5.
I appreciate your intelligent presentation of the pro-gnostic thesis, which I obviously do not share. As your objections show, it is an enormous subject but I believe there are adequate answers for everything that you propose. However, in the short space of an 800 word article, there will certainly be un-referenced statements and generalized (though informed) opinions because the goal of the piece was simply to show an overview of the cultural victory of a position which radically departs from orthodox Christianity. Unable, for reasons of time, to write long academic answers to your objections, I suggest my book-long study, Stolen Identity: The Conspiracy to Reinvent Jesus. This will not answer all of the objections you’ve raised here, but I would like you to consider the arguments I present there.
https://truthxchange.com/books/stolen-identity/