6) Assumed Veracity (Falsity?) of All Texts
She never addresses the validity of any of the texts she is discussing, rather she simply asserts their assertions as though all historical texts are on the same footing. She compares Thomas and John, without any regard for their respective dates, languages, cultures, proximity to the life of Jesus, or any other (in)validation. (disregarding dates, cultures, etc.)
It is as though she assumes they are all correct (without attempting to harmonize their contradictions) or rather, that she assumes that they are all false (and so has no need), or perhaps (what seems most likely) she believes that the historical question is irrelevant. As though it is unimportant what Jesus actually said or did, or whether he existed at all; the only important issue is what is said and believed about Jesus, not what is true about him.
Showing posts with label Elaine Pagels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elaine Pagels. Show all posts
2.23.2011
1.10.2011
Review: Beyond Belief pt V
5) Ignoring Other Theories
Pagels makes no attempt to address the arguments of other scholars and simply asserts her version. It is not problematic for her to have a diverse view, but certainly a credible argument must be given as to why her opinion is correct in the face of so much scholarly opinion to the contrary. She seems simply unaware of (or unwilling to tangle with) the realm of scholarship on an issue like the significance of the resurrection. She puts forth as plausible that Christians might believe in a 'spiritual' resurrection, when at least some contemporary scholars have argued significantly that no Jewish Christian would believe such a thing, nor would such a belief lead to the rise of the Church.
Even on issues where I do not know the opinion of scholarship, she still fails to argue for her assertions when they seem to have obvious alternative explanations. This is true of the dating of various manuscripts, the degree to which certain theological diversities would have been acceptable as 'within orthodoxy' prior to Irenaeus, and many other issues.
Case in point, she asserts that the 2nd Century argument by Irenaeus for a four-fold gospel canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the simultaneous creation of Tatian's Diatessaron (the single book harmonizing these same four gospels), suggests that this was a new idea; that people would not have been familiar with the idea of a four gospel canon, and that this was why Irenaeus was so forceful in his argument for it. But to me it suggests exactly the opposite! Why would two men from two completely different parts of the world, from different cultures, simultaneously turn to these four gospels as authoritative if there were no previous weight given to those same documents? It seems a question that needs answering, not ignoring...
Even a basic working knowledge of orthodox doctrine seems to be lacking. She sees orthodox Christians arguing for a divine Jesus against the gnostic picture of a human one. This actually flips reality on its head; the gnostics were the ones who often pictured Jesus as lacking humanity (and a physical body), it was the orthodox position that affirmed both his divinity (and of equal importance) his humanity.
Pagels makes no attempt to address the arguments of other scholars and simply asserts her version. It is not problematic for her to have a diverse view, but certainly a credible argument must be given as to why her opinion is correct in the face of so much scholarly opinion to the contrary. She seems simply unaware of (or unwilling to tangle with) the realm of scholarship on an issue like the significance of the resurrection. She puts forth as plausible that Christians might believe in a 'spiritual' resurrection, when at least some contemporary scholars have argued significantly that no Jewish Christian would believe such a thing, nor would such a belief lead to the rise of the Church.
Even on issues where I do not know the opinion of scholarship, she still fails to argue for her assertions when they seem to have obvious alternative explanations. This is true of the dating of various manuscripts, the degree to which certain theological diversities would have been acceptable as 'within orthodoxy' prior to Irenaeus, and many other issues.
Case in point, she asserts that the 2nd Century argument by Irenaeus for a four-fold gospel canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the simultaneous creation of Tatian's Diatessaron (the single book harmonizing these same four gospels), suggests that this was a new idea; that people would not have been familiar with the idea of a four gospel canon, and that this was why Irenaeus was so forceful in his argument for it. But to me it suggests exactly the opposite! Why would two men from two completely different parts of the world, from different cultures, simultaneously turn to these four gospels as authoritative if there were no previous weight given to those same documents? It seems a question that needs answering, not ignoring...
Even a basic working knowledge of orthodox doctrine seems to be lacking. She sees orthodox Christians arguing for a divine Jesus against the gnostic picture of a human one. This actually flips reality on its head; the gnostics were the ones who often pictured Jesus as lacking humanity (and a physical body), it was the orthodox position that affirmed both his divinity (and of equal importance) his humanity.
1.07.2011
Review: Beyond Belief pt IV
4) Flawed Recreations of History
Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that she simply misconstrues history. She paints the entire era of 2nd and 3rd Century Christianity in an inaccurate way.
She describes gnostic beliefs in ways that might seem attractive to contemporary spiritual seekers but leaves out central 2nd Century gnostic tenets that might be deemed 'unattractive.' She paints gnostics in the vein of free-loving, undogmatic, New-Agers, but she fails to communicate that the gnosticism of the day viewed the material world as evil. They disdained the creation and everything with it, food, sex, and pleasure were to be eschewed; the physical world was not a place of beauty, but rather a prison.
The same is true of orthodoxy. She portrays the orthodox Christian community as primarily seeking political power, or at least political autonomy. It is this undergirding force that she claims led early Christians to embrace 'orthodoxy' and its attendant creeds in the first place. Christians were not orthodox until it became politically expedient to do so. This is simply a failure to understand the political situation of the day, or the political, social, and economic ramifications of orthodoxy in that situation.
It seems as though Pagels is unaware of the enormous disfavor the early Christians faced for their beliefs. Orthodoxy was far from political expediency, it was actually political suicide! Strike that, it wasn't political suicide, it was actual suicide! To proclaim an orthodox faith was to court martyrdom. Certainly this was more or less true depending on the Emperor and the local governor in question, but it was largely a reality until 313 AD, 150 years after Irenaus' arguments against the gnostics.
The opposite is true of the gnostic communities. Rome simply didn't care about the wellspring of new spiritualities, or even the proclamation of the name Jesus (even a Jesus executed by Romans). So long as those who practiced this new faith were willing to proclaim "Caesar is Lord," and give worship to his name, the Romans were quite pluralistic. The gnostic communities were not the ones facing persecution, nor even political pressure.
Whatever pressure gnostics faced from orthodox Christians was pressure from those without power. You would hardly call a group being persecuted a seat of cultural or political power. When men like Irenaeus spoke their words it cannot be viewed as persecution of others, rather their words were born out of a need to clarify what exactly was true about Jesus, and what exactly needed to be held to in the face of their own persecution.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that she simply misconstrues history. She paints the entire era of 2nd and 3rd Century Christianity in an inaccurate way.
She describes gnostic beliefs in ways that might seem attractive to contemporary spiritual seekers but leaves out central 2nd Century gnostic tenets that might be deemed 'unattractive.' She paints gnostics in the vein of free-loving, undogmatic, New-Agers, but she fails to communicate that the gnosticism of the day viewed the material world as evil. They disdained the creation and everything with it, food, sex, and pleasure were to be eschewed; the physical world was not a place of beauty, but rather a prison.
The same is true of orthodoxy. She portrays the orthodox Christian community as primarily seeking political power, or at least political autonomy. It is this undergirding force that she claims led early Christians to embrace 'orthodoxy' and its attendant creeds in the first place. Christians were not orthodox until it became politically expedient to do so. This is simply a failure to understand the political situation of the day, or the political, social, and economic ramifications of orthodoxy in that situation.
It seems as though Pagels is unaware of the enormous disfavor the early Christians faced for their beliefs. Orthodoxy was far from political expediency, it was actually political suicide! Strike that, it wasn't political suicide, it was actual suicide! To proclaim an orthodox faith was to court martyrdom. Certainly this was more or less true depending on the Emperor and the local governor in question, but it was largely a reality until 313 AD, 150 years after Irenaus' arguments against the gnostics.
The opposite is true of the gnostic communities. Rome simply didn't care about the wellspring of new spiritualities, or even the proclamation of the name Jesus (even a Jesus executed by Romans). So long as those who practiced this new faith were willing to proclaim "Caesar is Lord," and give worship to his name, the Romans were quite pluralistic. The gnostic communities were not the ones facing persecution, nor even political pressure.
Whatever pressure gnostics faced from orthodox Christians was pressure from those without power. You would hardly call a group being persecuted a seat of cultural or political power. When men like Irenaeus spoke their words it cannot be viewed as persecution of others, rather their words were born out of a need to clarify what exactly was true about Jesus, and what exactly needed to be held to in the face of their own persecution.
1.05.2011
Review: Beyond Belief pt III
I don't have the energy to deal with these systematically, so I will just address these points in no particular order:
1) Telescoping History
This is a common problem with people who talk about history in general, and early church history specifically. A prime example is the discussion about the influence of Constantine on the Church. Constantine's influence is far reaching, and certainly deserves to be discussed in a book on early Christian doctrine and lifestyle, however, Constantine's Edict of Milan was in 313 AD. From our 21st Century vantage point this may seem like a short jump from the lifetime of the Apostle's and Church Fathers, yet we must remember that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is closer to us in history than Jesus' crucifixion was to Constantine's Edict; Irenaeus' argument for a canonical fourfold gospel is removed from the influence of Constantine's conversion by a period of time equivalent to our own removal from the Civil War. In short, there is a common confusion about the timeline of ancient history, and a subsequent muddying in people's minds about which events have an impact on which other events.
Pagels certainly makes this mistake, arguing about Constantine's effect on the early church in a way that reveals she simply is unaware that what was going on in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Centuries could not have been influenced by what was going on in the 4th Century.
2) Confusing Literary Genres
The Gospel of Thomas is simply not a gospel. There is an attempt made by Pagels to compare and contrast the Thomas writings with the Gospel of John. But Thomas simply has no 'good news' to it. It is only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. The very attempt to label the Gospel of Thomas a gospel reveals how derivative a work it is. But none of this is addressed by Pagels.
3) Fails to Address the Historical Question
Pagels' book makes much of her recreation of the history of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Centuries. She paints a very particular picture of the life of the church, and of individuals within the church. And yet, the glaring omission from the book is her failure to ever address questions of the 1st Century. Not only does she not address the life and events of Jesus and the Apostles, but she never even tells us why she doesn't discuss them. In a book that takes sides on the 2nd Century debate about 1st Century history, that she herself never even touches the question of 1st Century history is a bit confusing.
1) Telescoping History
This is a common problem with people who talk about history in general, and early church history specifically. A prime example is the discussion about the influence of Constantine on the Church. Constantine's influence is far reaching, and certainly deserves to be discussed in a book on early Christian doctrine and lifestyle, however, Constantine's Edict of Milan was in 313 AD. From our 21st Century vantage point this may seem like a short jump from the lifetime of the Apostle's and Church Fathers, yet we must remember that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is closer to us in history than Jesus' crucifixion was to Constantine's Edict; Irenaeus' argument for a canonical fourfold gospel is removed from the influence of Constantine's conversion by a period of time equivalent to our own removal from the Civil War. In short, there is a common confusion about the timeline of ancient history, and a subsequent muddying in people's minds about which events have an impact on which other events.
Pagels certainly makes this mistake, arguing about Constantine's effect on the early church in a way that reveals she simply is unaware that what was going on in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Centuries could not have been influenced by what was going on in the 4th Century.
2) Confusing Literary Genres
The Gospel of Thomas is simply not a gospel. There is an attempt made by Pagels to compare and contrast the Thomas writings with the Gospel of John. But Thomas simply has no 'good news' to it. It is only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. The very attempt to label the Gospel of Thomas a gospel reveals how derivative a work it is. But none of this is addressed by Pagels.
3) Fails to Address the Historical Question
Pagels' book makes much of her recreation of the history of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Centuries. She paints a very particular picture of the life of the church, and of individuals within the church. And yet, the glaring omission from the book is her failure to ever address questions of the 1st Century. Not only does she not address the life and events of Jesus and the Apostles, but she never even tells us why she doesn't discuss them. In a book that takes sides on the 2nd Century debate about 1st Century history, that she herself never even touches the question of 1st Century history is a bit confusing.
12.28.2010
Review: Beyond Belief pt II
I was simply disappointed with this book. I was hoping for a coherent and plausible worldview to be explained and advocated; an argument for gnosticism, or an explanation of why it is a plausible worldview, or even an explanation of historical gnosticism. I would have settled for an intelligent polemic against orthodox Christianity. What I read was largely a statement about contemporary gnostic beliefs, with a veneer of historical and scholarly language laminated over the top of it...
Pagels certainly references history, historical personages, and historical documents. She is herself a scholar, and she does reference scholarly opinion. But nothing she says actually links her contemporary gnostic worldview with either historical gnosticism, or the life of Jesus himself. She simply doesn't seem to care where her views come from. But of course, this is exactly what she is advocating: a spirituality unmoored from statements of truth about the world around us, a worldview that has no need to answer clunky questions about science or history.
The book progresses from a brief survey of literature about Jesus from the first three Centuries, to a bald assertion that there was virtually no consensus about the historical Jesus, and finally to another bald assertion that orthodoxy is the result of political pressures from the 4th Century. She uses this to conclude that Christians today should ignore Christianity (and more specifically, orthodox pictures of the life, work, and teachings of Jesus) and instead decide for themselves whatever they want to think, believe, value, and trust. It is as though she feels no need to connect the worldview she advocates with either the historical Jesus, or any particular historical gnostic community or document.
Instead of a book dealing with history and historical texts (which is what the subtitle of the book, and the constant references to history and scholarship suggests) we have a statement about Elaine Pagels personal spirituality, which is unmoored from any larger reality than Pagels' own personal navel gazing.
In my next post I will look at some of the historical claims she makes, and the overall historical framework she assumes. After that we will look at the spirituality she is advocating and compare that to what we do know of the historical Jesus and the spiritual life He offers us. Finally, we will look at some possible lessons the church can learn from Pagels' ideas.
Pagels certainly references history, historical personages, and historical documents. She is herself a scholar, and she does reference scholarly opinion. But nothing she says actually links her contemporary gnostic worldview with either historical gnosticism, or the life of Jesus himself. She simply doesn't seem to care where her views come from. But of course, this is exactly what she is advocating: a spirituality unmoored from statements of truth about the world around us, a worldview that has no need to answer clunky questions about science or history.
The book progresses from a brief survey of literature about Jesus from the first three Centuries, to a bald assertion that there was virtually no consensus about the historical Jesus, and finally to another bald assertion that orthodoxy is the result of political pressures from the 4th Century. She uses this to conclude that Christians today should ignore Christianity (and more specifically, orthodox pictures of the life, work, and teachings of Jesus) and instead decide for themselves whatever they want to think, believe, value, and trust. It is as though she feels no need to connect the worldview she advocates with either the historical Jesus, or any particular historical gnostic community or document.
Instead of a book dealing with history and historical texts (which is what the subtitle of the book, and the constant references to history and scholarship suggests) we have a statement about Elaine Pagels personal spirituality, which is unmoored from any larger reality than Pagels' own personal navel gazing.
In my next post I will look at some of the historical claims she makes, and the overall historical framework she assumes. After that we will look at the spirituality she is advocating and compare that to what we do know of the historical Jesus and the spiritual life He offers us. Finally, we will look at some possible lessons the church can learn from Pagels' ideas.
12.25.2010
Review: Beyond Belief pt I
I will address some of her specific points in later posts, but thought it best to start with some generalizations:
Pagels portrays orthodox Christianity as largely concerned with static doctrinal purity. Conversely, gnosticism, as she describes it, is entirely concerned with a perpetual quest for meaning. Pagels claims that the orthodox understanding of truth is largely in terms of propositional statements, and in the conviction that those propositional truth claims are absolute. Gnosticism, however, is open to other, intuitive and emotive, ways of knowing. Pagels implies often throughout the book that the orthodox position, far from holding to truth, actually prevents people from pursuing truth; we are more concerned with political correctness than with truth. I must confess, Pagels description here of the Church, while painful, is generally accurate.
This was, however, the only strength of the book in my opinion.
We have often set aside the pursuit of God, and the seeking of truth, for the sake of a sense of assuredness. We want to 'know the truth' but when we discover that the truth is complicated or even, at times, ineffable we settle for 'knowing doctrine.'
====================
...a friend wants to know God more deeply, he is a Christian and a member of a local church, but the leaders of the church simply parrot creeds and doctrines at him. He doesn't know what questions to ask, but there is a sense of dissatisfaction with the answers they give him. They are frustrated that he won't just 'get with the program' but he simply wants to know the truth. (I thought that was the program!)
====================
We have become more concerned with correctly pronouncing our theological shibboleth's while ignoring the content of our theology and our lives. How someone answers the question of Christology, or homosexuality, or ____________, is more important to us that whether someone prays regularly, loves deeply, lives intimately, or obeys readily. We are unwilling to question, or to allow (much less encourage) others to question, out of fear. I know of Christian pastor's and professors who have explicitly stated, "I don't want my students to learn to think critically, I just want them to believe the correct statements of fact and doctrine."
Gnosticism, of course, runs to the other end of the spectrum here! There is no real concern for truth, as such. Rather, whatever I discover within myself is truth. This is Pagel's real agenda behind her scholarship; yet another ringing endorsement of the Enlightenment agenda, the unshackling of individualism and hedonism.
The contemporary gnostic says, 'Look deep within yourself, and then be true to whatever you find there.'
As one who has looked deep within myself and been horrified, I find these sentiments naive at best, evil at worst, and obviously spoken by someone who has no intention of looking 'deep within' in any honest sense of those words...
Pagels portrays orthodox Christianity as largely concerned with static doctrinal purity. Conversely, gnosticism, as she describes it, is entirely concerned with a perpetual quest for meaning. Pagels claims that the orthodox understanding of truth is largely in terms of propositional statements, and in the conviction that those propositional truth claims are absolute. Gnosticism, however, is open to other, intuitive and emotive, ways of knowing. Pagels implies often throughout the book that the orthodox position, far from holding to truth, actually prevents people from pursuing truth; we are more concerned with political correctness than with truth. I must confess, Pagels description here of the Church, while painful, is generally accurate.
This was, however, the only strength of the book in my opinion.
We have often set aside the pursuit of God, and the seeking of truth, for the sake of a sense of assuredness. We want to 'know the truth' but when we discover that the truth is complicated or even, at times, ineffable we settle for 'knowing doctrine.'
====================
...a friend wants to know God more deeply, he is a Christian and a member of a local church, but the leaders of the church simply parrot creeds and doctrines at him. He doesn't know what questions to ask, but there is a sense of dissatisfaction with the answers they give him. They are frustrated that he won't just 'get with the program' but he simply wants to know the truth. (I thought that was the program!)
====================
We have become more concerned with correctly pronouncing our theological shibboleth's while ignoring the content of our theology and our lives. How someone answers the question of Christology, or homosexuality, or ____________, is more important to us that whether someone prays regularly, loves deeply, lives intimately, or obeys readily. We are unwilling to question, or to allow (much less encourage) others to question, out of fear. I know of Christian pastor's and professors who have explicitly stated, "I don't want my students to learn to think critically, I just want them to believe the correct statements of fact and doctrine."
Gnosticism, of course, runs to the other end of the spectrum here! There is no real concern for truth, as such. Rather, whatever I discover within myself is truth. This is Pagel's real agenda behind her scholarship; yet another ringing endorsement of the Enlightenment agenda, the unshackling of individualism and hedonism.
The contemporary gnostic says, 'Look deep within yourself, and then be true to whatever you find there.'
As one who has looked deep within myself and been horrified, I find these sentiments naive at best, evil at worst, and obviously spoken by someone who has no intention of looking 'deep within' in any honest sense of those words...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)