49 pages • 1-hour read
The Gnostic Gospels
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Subjective Distinction Between Orthodoxy and Heresy
To the extent that any unified group called “the Gnostics” existed, its existence was defined largely by its opposition to “orthodox” Christianity. Gnostic beliefs were deemed heretical because they challenged the foundational beliefs of the early Christian church, and for Pagels, that heretical orientation toward official Christendom is the single unifying feature that holds together a range of disparate groups with sometimes conflicting beliefs. “Orthodoxy” and “heresy” are inherently subjective, political terms that can only be defined with reference to political power. The word orthodox is derived from the Greek for “right belief,” a label that can only be applied by those in authority. In other words, the orthodox church became “orthodox” because it won out in the contest for power and influence, gaining the authority to define its own beliefs as legitimate and conflicting beliefs as heretical, while the gnostics became “heretical” simply because they had not succeeded in becoming orthodox. Both orthodox and gnostic Christianity drew from the same traditions and texts, like the story of Jesus’s resurrection and the New Testament. Also, the orthodox writer and anti-gnostic critic “Irenaeus’ religious convictions and his position—like those of his gnostic opponents—reciprocally influenced one another” (47). In short, the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy was as much social and political as theological. Belief was, of course, crucial, but Pagels suggests beliefs were also deeply intertwined with issues like gender roles and questions of institutional authority.
This is why Elaine Pagels sees the conflict as reflecting institutional and social circumstances that shaped the development of Christianity as a whole. “For ideas alone do not make a religion powerful, although it cannot succeed without them; equally important are social and political structures that identify and unite people into a common affiliation” (141). In fact, Pagels suggests that one of the real points of contention between the orthodox and gnostics is that gnostic Christians “were not likely to recognize the institutional structures of the church—its bishop, priest, creed, canon, or ritual—as bearing ultimate authority” (134).
One of the criticisms made about The Gnostic Gospels is that the category “gnostic” was invented by orthodox thinkers like Tertullian, who were critical of gnostic beliefs. What Pagels describes as the “gnostic movement” (xxii) did not have an institutional church, meaning that the gnostics were at best loosely unified by a few shared ideas, with significant variations between groups and texts. Pagels herself suggests that the category of gnostic Christian is as much political as theological, with “heretics” like the gnostics simply being “those who resisted doctrinal conformity, questioned the value of the ‘blood witness,’ and often opposed submission to episcopal authority” (101). Whatever one makes of Pagels’s arguments and presentation of gnostic beliefs, the meanings of categories like orthodoxy and gnosticism need to be considered and questioned.
The Primacy of Direct Spiritual Knowledge
The defining characteristic of all gnostics comes from their very name, gnosis, which denotes spiritual, internal knowledge or “insight” (xix). Pagels suggests throughout much of The Gnostic Gospels that many if not all of the distinctive characteristics of gnostic groups stem from this concept of gnosis. For example, gnosis was “a religious perspective that implicitly opposed the development of the kind of institution that became the early catholic church” (134). After all, the idea of divine knowledge found within challenged the notion that one needed the leadership of priests to find God. This could explain why many (but apparently not all) gnostic groups were more accepting of female leadership, since “every initiate,” regardless of gender, “was assumed to have received, through the initiation ritual, the charismatic gift of direct inspiration through the Holy Spirit” (41).
This emphasis on gnosis is also a major reason why Pagels compares gnostic belief to modern ideas about individuality and the subconsciousness. She notes, “The gnostic movement shared certain affinities with contemporary methods of exploring the self through psychotherapeutic techniques” and both gnostic thought and psychology “agree that, lacking this, a person experiences the sense of being driven by impulses he does not understand” (124). Likewise, each individual’s quest for gnosis parallels modern ideas about achieving fulfillment by realizing one’s potential as an individual. In modern culture, achieving good mental health or realizing one’s potential is seen as a process of working toward self-development; similarly, for the gnostics, “pursuing gnosis engages each person in a solitary, difficult process, as one struggles against internal resistance” (126).
However, gnosis was not just about self-actualization, but also about achieving knowledge of the divine. At least one gnostic leader, Valentinus, argued that “humanity itself manifests the divine life and divine revelation” (122). The process of attaining gnosis itself “involves coming to recognize the true source of divine power—namely, ‘the depth’ of all being” (37). Because of this, in the gnostics believed that ignorance, not sin, was the real spiritual danger facing humanity. Ignorance is even viewed in gnostic theology as the source of all evil and suffering. Spiritual evolution and overcoming ignorance are one and the same. “Only those who come to recognize that they have been living in ignorance, and learn to release themselves by discovering who they are, experience enlightenment as a new life, as ‘the resurrection’” (111). For Pagels, the core difference between gnostic and orthodox Christianity is that the latter centers external relationships, defining evil as mistreatment of others and interposing a hierarchy of human authorities between the believer and God. By contrast, the gnostics focus on internal development and wisdom achieved through cultivation of the self.
The Impact of Religious Beliefs on Gender and Power
While orthodox writings described God in exclusively masculine terms, many gnostic texts conceived of God as possessing both masculine and feminine aspects, referring to a divine Mother who was equal to and inextricable from the divine Father. These ideas were not just abstractions. They were reflected in how women were allowed to share in organizational and spiritual authority in several gnostic groups, in an example of “a correlation between religious theory and social practice” (61). For Pagels, such correlations are fundamental to the study of religion: Religions exist in part to legitimate the structures of power that govern how people relate to each other. Part of the appeal of the gnostic texts, for Pagels and her modern readers, is that they show a more egalitarian model of gender in the ancient world than is seen in what became “orthodox” Christianity.
Still, Pagels admits that conceptions of gender and women’s status varied. Even among the gnostics, “Different teachers disagreed” (51). Nonetheless, these different approaches to gender and the social position of women were shaped by three overlapping forces, traditional cultural and social beliefs calling for the subordination of women, “a time of social transition” (62) across the Roman Empire when women were enjoying more independence, and Jesus’s own more egalitarian treatment of women. As the Gospels show, “in its earliest years the Christian movement showed a remarkable openness toward women. Jesus himself violated Jewish convention by talking openly with women, and he included them among his companions” (61). At the same time, though, other writings in the New Testament were often cited to justify denying women leadership positions in the Church. While gnostic Christians often drew on the more egalitarian views expressed in the accounts of Jesus, the orthodox instead adopted the concept that authority in the church had to be masculine, just as the divine had to be seen as purely masculine. “By the time the process of sorting the various writings ended—probably as late as the year 200 CE—virtually all the feminine imagery for God had disappeared from orthodox Christian tradition” (57).
It is in discussions of gender and the divine that readers of The Gnostic Gospels might see the complexity of trying to understand the history of early Christianity through the conflict of orthodox and gnostic Christianity. How intellectuals in both groups handled the question of female authority and the gender of God was something that did not break down cleanly along opposing sides. Further, ideas about gender were shaped by complex factors, both within Christianity and outside in the broader society and culture. This illustrates Pagels’s overarching point that social and political structures are at least as important as ideas in understanding the significance of religion.
Unlock every key theme and why it matters
Get in-depth breakdowns of the book’s main ideas and how they connect and evolve.
- Explore how themes develop throughout the text
- Connect themes to characters, events, and symbols
- Support essays and discussions with thematic evidence