Selected quotes from Ms. Pagels' article on Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code:
As a historian, I would agree that no reputable scholar has ever found evidence of author Dan Brown's assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, and no scholar would take seriously Brown's conspiracy theories about the Catholic group Opus Dei.Ms. Pagels then goes on to say the book is popular because of some things Mr. Brown got right: first "that some views of Christian history were buried for centuries because leaders of the early Catholic Church wanted to present one version of Jesus' life: theirs."
But what is compelling about Brown's work of fiction, and part of what may be worrying Catholic and evangelical leaders, is not the book's many falsehoods.
She goes on to say that "Brown [has] brought up subjects that the Catholic Church would like to avoid. He raised the big what-ifs: What if the version of Jesus' life that Christians are taught isn't the right one? And perhaps as troubling in a still-patriarchal church: What if Mary Magdalene played a more important role in Jesus' life than we've been led to believe, not as his wife perhaps, but as a beloved and valued disciple?"
She goes on to remind us, briefly of the Gnostic Gospels. As I have mentioned before, she is the recognized authority on this collection of writings.What, then, do these texts say, and why did certain leaders find them so threatening?Second, and perhaps worst of all, she says, "was that many of these secret texts speak of God not only in masculine images, but also in feminine images".
First, they suggest that the way to God can be found by anyone who seeks. According to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus suggests that when we come to know ourselves at the deepest level, we come to know God: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you." This message – to seek for oneself – was not one that bishops like Irenaeus appreciated: Instead, he insisted, one must come to God through the church, "outside of which," he said, "there is no salvation."
Second .... Jesus appears as human, yet one through whom the light of God now shines.... People might end up thinking that they could be like Jesus themselves.
Those possibilities opened by the "Gnostic" gospels – that God could have a feminine side and that Jesus could be human – are key ideas that Dan Brown explored in "The Da Vinci Code,'' and are no doubt part of what made the book so alluring.Elaine Pagels is the author of The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, is a professor of religion at Princeton. She wrote this article for the Perspective section of the San Jose Mercury News (linked above).
The strongest criticism I have heard regarding the Gnostics is their rejection of humanity's physical being. They consider human flesh something base and crass that the (superior) soul must escape from.
In the recently recovered "Gospel Of Judas," Judas is portrayed as a hero because he helps Jesus escape his fleshy prison.
This is in strong contrast to Christian thought in the early church, which considered the soul and body to be indivisible. There is a reason why Jesus, the Epistles, and John's Revelation all emphasize a physical resurrection. The early Christian Church considered the human body to be part of God's sacred creation.
The church began to turn from this view around the time of Augustine, and an anti-body bias has persisted through both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology ever since.
Another criticism which seems to be common is the Gnostic belief that only those who shared their "secret knowledge" would be saved.
However, Ms. Pagels has drawn our attention to bits and pieces of the canon which also speak of "secret knowledge". For example, in Matthew, Jesus says he reveals the truth in parables because the common people aren't ready for the truth. He then reveals this "secret" truth to his inner circle, by explaining the meaning of the parables.
The fact that the recorded explication is flat-footed allegory is beside the point.
If indeed the Gnostics believed they alone had the secret knowledge of salvation, it's a trait they share with many modern believers. Doesn't matter what denomination, religion, or tradition a person belongs to, we are awfully fond of defining ourselves as superior to those who hold differing opinions.
There is no question Gnostic literature is unorthodox. The Gnostic tradition was as diverse, in its way, as the modern Protestant tradition. I've tried to read Gnostic documents as a unified whole, and it's nigh unto impossible.
In addition to the church politics Ms Pagels details, it is possible the Gnostic movement died out because they could not produce a set of documents which had an internal unity as strong as the existing canon.
Regardless, there may be insights to be gained from the tradition. The notion of a Godhead which incorporates male and female appeals to me (though I would also argue God transcends gender). I am also attracted to the notion that we each have a divine spark, and have the capacity to be Christ.
I freely admit that I cherry-pick from Scripture to support what I have come to believe. I don't suppose myself to be unique. I chose to ignore the vinctictive and capricious God of the Torah, and focus on the compassionate God illustrated by the Prophets and Jesus.
I suggest it is possible to cherry-pick from the Gnostic literature in a similar fashion. Be nourished by that which inspires your inner spark; disregard that which does not. As the sage said, "Take the meat, and leave the rest."
No comments:
Post a Comment