Advertisement
I've just started reading The Gnostic Paul by Elaine Pagels. This book is essentially a Valentinian exegesis of selected letters - Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galations, Ephisians, Phillipians, Colossians, and Hebrews. You can read a few pages of the introduction at Amazon.com.
Pagels sets the stage well by explaining that the antignostic exegeses of Paul, which became the basis of popular Christianity, was in competition with the gnostic view. The Valentinian Gnostics held that Valentinus was a direct student of Theudas, who was a direct student of Paul. They claimed that Paul taught a secret doctrine that required such direct transmission.
Pagels advises caution in accepting the Valentinians' position without reservation, but she also seems to lean heavily in the direction of considering it valid. Really, I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to conclude that the Valentinians were telling the truth, especially since Paul's language is itself so gnostic in character. My personal experience with Paul is that it was only when I started studying mysticism and gnosticism that a lot of his teachings started to make real sense (the doctrine of the "elect" for example). But the antignostic theologians claim, rather awkwardly, that Paul's use of gnostic language was intended to turn the gnostics back to the antignostic view of salvation.
Pagels suggests that it is best to read Paul as one who was intentionally trying to speak to two different audiences at the same time. On the one hand he had a public message about the doctrine of salvation by faith in the risen Jesus, while on the other had there was a secret transmission to those who were "chosen". With the secret keys one has the eyes to see and ears to hear the gnostic teachings between the lines of his letters. She then goes on to demonstrate how to do just that in a way that is based upon the works of Valentinian scholars of the 2nd century, using the seven letters that the earliest theologians agreed were actually attributable to Paul.
Pagels also has a similar book on the Gospel of John, but I haven't yet acquired it.
Peace,
Griffin
Pagels sets the stage well by explaining that the antignostic exegeses of Paul, which became the basis of popular Christianity, was in competition with the gnostic view. The Valentinian Gnostics held that Valentinus was a direct student of Theudas, who was a direct student of Paul. They claimed that Paul taught a secret doctrine that required such direct transmission.
Pagels advises caution in accepting the Valentinians' position without reservation, but she also seems to lean heavily in the direction of considering it valid. Really, I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to conclude that the Valentinians were telling the truth, especially since Paul's language is itself so gnostic in character. My personal experience with Paul is that it was only when I started studying mysticism and gnosticism that a lot of his teachings started to make real sense (the doctrine of the "elect" for example). But the antignostic theologians claim, rather awkwardly, that Paul's use of gnostic language was intended to turn the gnostics back to the antignostic view of salvation.
Pagels suggests that it is best to read Paul as one who was intentionally trying to speak to two different audiences at the same time. On the one hand he had a public message about the doctrine of salvation by faith in the risen Jesus, while on the other had there was a secret transmission to those who were "chosen". With the secret keys one has the eyes to see and ears to hear the gnostic teachings between the lines of his letters. She then goes on to demonstrate how to do just that in a way that is based upon the works of Valentinian scholars of the 2nd century, using the seven letters that the earliest theologians agreed were actually attributable to Paul.
Pagels also has a similar book on the Gospel of John, but I haven't yet acquired it.
Peace,
Griffin
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: The Gnostic Paul
Wed, April 21, 2004 - 1:05 PMPreviously I wrote: "On the one hand he had a public message about the doctrine of salvation by faith in the risen Jesus, while on the other had there was a secret transmission to those who were "chosen"."
That was a slip of the fingers! Actually the secret transmission was to the elect, not the chosen.
This would be a good time to spell out some of the gnostic code that, according to Pagels, the gnostics exegetes understood Paul to be using:
the Jews = the chosen = the psychics (those who rely on the senses and emotions) = the literal believers in resurrection of the body = those who follow the law
the Gentiles = the Greeks = the elect = the pneumatics (those who rely on the spirit) = the spiritual knowers of the spiritual resurrection, or gnostics = those who establish the law
the Lord = the Demiurge
the Father = God
There's more, but go back and read Paul with just this and it reveals a great deal of what the early Christian Gnostics, and probably Paul himself, thought and taught in secret.
Peace,
Griffin -
-
Re: The Gnostic Paul
Mon, June 5, 2006 - 8:30 AMSome people have been bagging on Paul lately, and I thought this old post by Griffin provides a perspective about Paul some people might not know about. :-)
-
