I recently picked up Elaine Pagel’s The Gnostic Paul. I found it sloppy and irresponsible. Her thesis is that the historical Paul was a Gnostic who represents the first major schism in the early Christian movement. This theory echoes the hypothesis of F. C. Baur, the founder of the “Tübingen School”. Baur and his disciples believe that Paul’s “gospel” was noticeably different from the primitive Judeo-Christian doctrines under the leadership of Peter and James of Jerusalem.
Baur and the Tubingen school believed that “proto-orthodox Christianity” emerged as the second century was able to paint over the schism between Paul on one hand and Peter and James on the other. Acts was considered by them to be a second-century masterpiece that brings together the lives of Peter and Paul. The Pastoral Epistles of Paul and 2 Peter were created to splice together Peter and Paul. The tradition that Peter and Paul were martyred together in Rome on the same day is also an element in the great second-century conspiracy. The Johannine corpus is also a crowing achievement of the second-century “catholic” conspiracy.
This theory has been abandoned by serious scholarship since recent papyrus discoveries have proved that the John’s Gospel belongs to the first century. It is also now accpted that Acts and the Pastorals belong to an era earlier than assigned by the Tubingen school.
But Elaine Pagels has resurrected the theory and put a twist on it using feminist hermeneutics.
Pagels sees Paul as a full-blown Gnostic. The second-century Gnostics were not a later schism broken off from “Apostolic Christianity”. Rather, the Gnostics continued the esoteric Pauline tradition.
Paul, claims Pagels, was a Gnostic who promoted a radical social agenda in which the “flesh profits nothing”. Paul’s discussion of Jews and Gentiles is code for pyschics (soulish Christians) and pneumatics (spiritual Christians). Part of Paul’s message was the complete liberation of women of the bondage of pre-assigned gender roles. Pagels claims that Paul is a spiritual feminist! As a Gnostic, bodies do not matter and neither does sexuality. The Pauline Gospel (Luke) focuses on the importance of women and the early Marcionites also promoted women’s leadership. This feminist steak can be seen in Paul’s own writings (e.g. the deaconess in Rom 16). The 2nd century “Acts of Paul and Thecla” also recall Paul’s egalitarian outlook.
Pagels believes that the true second-century conspiracy occurred when the imperial middle-class took over the church (ecclesiastical class war-fare??), and produced Pauline forgeries that “corrected” Paul’s feminism. These forgeries taught that women could not speak in church, would be saved by childbearing, could not be leaders, etc.
Is it not interesting that the feminist, new-age, Gnostic scholar of our era, Elaine Pagels, has perfectly cast Saint Paul in her own image? The whole thing is so obviously hack scholarship and yet she is tenured at Princeton…




Personally, I wouldn’t waste a dime, or my time, on any of Pagel’s books.
For a variety of reasons, I don’t consider her to be a very credible source of information.
See for example:
The Pagels Imposture.
by Paul Mankowski, S.J.
Pontifical Biblical Institute
Rome
http://www.cwnews.com/news/views…fm? recnum=43736
And, believe it or not, she’s not the only one saying this!!!!!!!! Are you a born-again Christian or something trying to salvage you’re pittance of the proven forgeries of biblical tales as some kind of truth?
“Are you a born-again Christian or something trying to salvage you’re [sic] pittance of the proven forgeries of biblical tales as some kind of truth?”
Like a majority of Christians in the world, I am a Roman Catholic Christian.
Princeton has Peter Singer too.
“I recently picked up Elaine Pagel’s The Gnostic Paul. I found it sloppy and irresponsible. Her thesis is that the historical Paul was a Gnostic who represents the first major schism in the early Christian movement.”
What utter nonsense, this isn’t her thesis at all. The book is about how the Gnostics interpreted Paul, not what Paul himself actually taught. Here is a quote from the introduction of the book (Pages 8 and 9):
“The present study focuses specifically on Paul as he is being read in the second century. The subject is, of course, NOT PAUL HIMSELF but “the gnostic Paul” – that is, the figure that emerges from second-century gnostic sources. This investigation into the history of hermeneutics makes no attempt to reconstruct a historical account of the apostle himself, or of the issues he confronted in his own communities. Instead the task is to investigate how two conflicting views of Paul emerge and develop as early as the second century.”
I would suggest that you try reading the book, before you attempt to criticize the author.
I feel bad about the sarcastic tone of my previous statement, please accept my apologies for that.
I was angry because of your deceptive misrepresentation of Pagel’s book.
Melissa,
There is that statement on pp. 8-9 – but read the rest of the book. Pagels is always telling us what the “Valentinian exegetes” taught. Yet there aren’t any citations or footnotes. In other words, she is the source for what the Valentinian Gnostics taught. It’s her own creation. Is this scholarship? Nobody has the courage to say that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. This isn’t scholarship. This is Pagels creating an “alternate reading” of Paul that conforms to the rest of her “academic” work.
As Pagels writes later in the book: “To read Paul either way – as hypergnostic or hyperorthodox – is to read unhistorically, attempting to interpret the apostle’s theology in terms of categories formulated in second-century debate. On the other hand, whoever takes account of the total evidence may learn from the debate to approach Pauline exegesis with renewed openness to the texts.”
What she has done is polarize all scholarship (as hypergnostic or hyperorthodox), and then place her scholarship in the moderate middle – which means that Paul is kind of orthodox and kind of gnostic. It’s a clever way of shielding herself from criticism…
What I’m saying in my book and on this site is that we should and must read Paul through the lens of the second century debates. There is not an “objective” lens through which we can examine Paul as Pagels assumes. Rather Pagels is reading Paul through 20th century categories.
Tylor,
I was rather confused by you last post here. You say “there aren’t any citations or footnotes” yet her book contains literally hundreds of footnotes, most of which contain multiple references to primary sources.
Also could you provide an example of a place where she argues that Paul himself was a Gnostic, rather than discuses how the Gnostics perceived him.
It seems to me that if there is anyone who has agenda or portray Paul in a particular way it is you – the web address of this site for example reads “Paul is Catholic”, when a few spaces are added to separate the words. Of course you are quite entitled to argue your case but it is unprofessional to accuse Pagels of poor scholarship simply because her views are not in agreement with your own.
Melissa
When discussing Pagels, I always like to quote Fr. Paul Mankowski. The background is that Pagels fabricated a quotation of Irenaeus. (Maybe because he didn’t say what she wanted him to say.) Fr. Mankowski conclusion is clear; Pagel is no scholar:
As Jimmy Akin puts it: Ouch!
Kjetil,
Your last two comments (including this one) have been great. I really appreciate your perspective and writing style.
I’d be honored if you would consider writing a guest post for pauliscatholic.com
Please let me know if you’re interested. I’d include any links you want.
Kjetal, you want to make a big deal about the way Pagels cited Irenaeus? She was completely honest about where the quoted material came from; it was obvious to all of her readers what she was doing – hardly an act of deception though obviously her point would have been better supported by a straightforward quote. Compare that with the numerous and blatant false statments that I find here on this very webpage.
Tylor, you say that Pagels argues that the historical Paul was a Gnostic. You still haven’t provided any examples of passages here she makes any such statements. You say that “there aren’t any citations or footnotes” when there are literally hundreds; look on pages 10-12 for the footnotes to the introduction chapter, the notes to the Romans chapter are on pages 46-52, the notes to the 1 Corinthians chapter are on pages 87-94. I could go on but I think I’ve made my point.
Are you going to retract you statements? I don’t want to believe that you are a deliberate liar. Hopefully this is all just a mistake.
Melissa