Let's get one thing clear. The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel. The media is sensationalizing the whole "discovery" of this gospel while providing no explanation for the doctrines that underlie this gospel. Back when I was in seminary, "Gnostic" was what you called someone when you wanted to call them a dirty name. One of my favorite lectures was one by theology professor Ted Runyon, who used the Hare Krishnas and the Late Great Planet Earth as examples of twentieth-century Gnosticism. (Great line about Lindsey: he cuts the Bible into little pieces and reads it like a fortune cookie).
I guess more recently, under the baneful influence of Elaine Pagels, the Gnostics experience something of a revival of reputation after my seminary days. But I stick by the Gnostic-bashers. The Gnostics had it coming.
Anyway, this link explains gnosticism.
6 comments:
How anyone can equate Hal Lindsey with gnosticism is beyond me. I am hopeful your teacher was only jesting or your educational instition served you very poorly.
And, my goodness, why is Ms. Pagel's activities deserving of the harsh "baneful"? She's done a great service by helping us to understand better the varieties of belief in early Christianity. I don't think she's deserving of such criticism from a fellow believer.
t.
Dave thinks it's unfair to Hal, I think Tim thinks it's unfair to the Gnostics. I'm sure it has been useful to learn more about Gnosticism, but I thought at the time her book on the Gnostic Gospels came out a distinct attempt to rehabilitate the Gnostics. Whereas I'm firmly convinced that the Church was fully justified in condemning them as heretics.
My teacher's comparison was entertaining and interesting, though of course the analogy can be pushed only so far.
I think you are being unfair to Ms. Pagels. As I stated earlier, she has contributed to our understanding of the early church. It was not the monolithic doctrinal entity that people often naively assume. Whether or not she looks favorably on the gnostics is rather besides the point. Her work should not be characterized as a baneful influence.
Your criticism of Mr. Lindsey for cutting up the scripture into little pieces in order to interpret it can be applied equally to evangelicals, gnosticism or even Jewish midrash so I see no relevance at all in the analogy your teacher was using to attack him.
t.
Pagels is a loony. So there.
FWIW, Dr. Peter Jones, WSC prof and member of my church, is an expert on paganism and Gnosticism. I'd recommend his books to Dr. Reppert, for example: Spirit Wars. The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back. Capturing the Pagan Mind. Cracking Da Vinci's Code. Jones' books are available from Amazon, or from his website
http://www.cwipp.org/
Dr. Jones has a Ph.D from Princton Seminay, has been teaching at the graduate level for a very long time, is founder and president of the Christian think tank CWIPP, which specifically addresses issues of gnosticism and paganism.
The "baneful influence" of Pagel? I guess her influence is baneful because you don't like it!
You're showing your own ingnorance, Victor. Gnosticism was a far more complex religous phenomenon than you realize. Under the label of gnosticism flourished a great deal of both wisdom and foolishness. The same can be said for orthodox christianity.
David Calvani
Post a Comment