Imagine practicing a religion that erased an entire part of its history. Imagine that the historical segment was deemed heretical centuries ago, rarely discussed by the church again. That’s basically what happened to the Gnostics in Christianity.

I was raised Catholic and attended mass every week until I was 18 years old. Never once did I hear about the Gnostics or other early Christians. Never once was I told of the diversity of early Christians. 

This is why I was blown away after recently reading Elaine Pagels’ book, The Gnostic Gospels. Pagels is a Princeton professor who wrote this book following her participation with an international team of scholars that translated and researched Gnostic texts found in Upper Egypt in 1945 at Nag Hammadi.   

The result was a book that challenged – with evidence – some of the fundamental tenets of the orthodox Christian church. Not Greek or Eastern orthodox, but in the formal, hierarchical Christian church, from Catholic to Protestant.   

The Gnostic Gospels left me with more questions than answers about the faith I was raised to believe and practice. And that shouldn’t be a bad thing; we should constantly be critiquing our beliefs, even if they go against the fundamental core of our religious beings.

Let’s discuss how Pagels made her case for the Gnostics so persuasive while remaining relatively objective and refraining from actively advocating for any one side. I’ll also explain what she could have done better and how even a cursory knowledge of the Gnostics has impacted my religious perspective. 

For more book reviews, click here.

Gnosticism wasn’t institutionally marketable 

Gnosticism comes from “Gnosis”, or self-knowledge. It developed alongside early Christian sects but viewed the achievement of gnosis and the true source of divine power as the depth of all being. In fact, some Gnostics argued that there is no separation from God; self-knowledge is knowledge of God. 

The self and divine are identical. 

In this way, the Gnostics are more Eastern than Western in their religion and philosophy. The idea that the creator or founder is less lord and more spiritual guide is almost straight from the Buddha himself. The living Buddha is practically the living Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic Gospel). 

Research continues on the Nag Hammadi discovery that led to Pagel’s book into whether Gnostic texts can be traced to Indian sources. 

By focusing on individual self-knowledge as the core foundation of faith, the Gnostics lacked the institutional and organizational structure of the orthodox Christian church that was forming at the time. They lacked the community, system of beliefs, and church doctrine of other Christian sects. 

Gnostics believed the material world was inherently flawed and that true salvation came from transcending its confines through individual spiritual enlightenment. This perspective was and is antithetical to the orthodox insistence on the literal interpretation of events, including the crucifixion and resurrection. Gnostics emphasized only their symbolic and allegorical significance. 

This radical departure from orthodox belief, in favor of a more mystical, introspective, and individualistic approach to spirituality, led to early Christians labeling the Gnostics as heretics. 

This is probably why I never learned about them through 18 years of Catholic school. 

Simply put, the Gnostics were too focused on self-knowledge and were therefore not as institutionally marketable compared to orthodox sects. 

Pagels objectively assesses how Christianity originated

Overall, Pagels does a good job objectively assessing how the Gnostics evolved alongside orthodox Christians. She explains the key differences that led the Gnostics down alternative paths.

For example, in the Gnostic Gospel, The Testimony of Truth, the story of the Garden of Eden is told from the viewpoint of the serpent. Unlike the Old Testament, the serpent appears in Gnostic literature as a creature of divine wisdom. 

Pagels also highlights key points about the Catholic Gospels, including how we know virtually nothing about the actual persons who wrote the four accepted Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 

Her rendition of the orthodox church’s evolution is in line with my personal experience – any deviation or challenge to the original teachings of the apostles is heresy. Maybe that’s why the Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi remained buried in a jar for 1,600 years. 

Pagels objectively tracks the rise and fall of Gnosticism alongside modern-day Christianity without advocating for one side more than the other. She does strongly infer, however, that Gnosticism is more of a democratic and individualistic system of belief compared to the more authoritarian dictums of orthodox Christianity.   

Politics and history played a major role in shaping orthodox Christianity and the Gnostic downfall

One factor I did not appreciate–nor was I ever taught–was the role of politics and history in shaping orthodox Christianity. In Catholic school, we jumped straight into doctrine. I don’t recall once discussing or studying how the modern church came to be and what political, historical, or other societal influences helped shape it. 

But as Pagels describes in more detail, politics not only drove literal interpretations for the early orthodox church, it legitimized certain men. Specifically, men who claimed to exercise exclusive leadership over the church as direct successors of the apostle Peter (the historic founder of the Catholic church).  

What made Peter so especially exclusive is that many claimed he was the first to witness Jesus after the resurrection. Although the Gospels of Mark and John both name Mary Magdalene. 

The political implications and power ascribed to “seeing Jesus first” were significant according to Pagels. In addition, the 11 apostles held the elite positions of “official witnesses” to Jesus after the resurrection, giving them incontestable authority and the unique power to ordain future leaders of the church.  

The orthodox Christian church thereby evolved with an organized system of governance, which modeled itself off the Roman political and military structure. 

By the fourth century, the orthodox church gained imperial support and legitimacy and the Gnostics proved to be no match. 

Pagels does not critique Gnosticism enough

Despite remaining relatively objective overall, Pagels barely critiques Gnosticism. She largely blames–or at least points–to the orthodox church for the cause of its disappearance and ouster. But she never really examines inward, assessing whether there is something more fundamental to Gnosticism that didn’t allow it to catch on in the same way modern Christianity did. 

Was Gnosticism simply less marketable as I mentioned earlier? Did its lack of structure and organization lead to an overly-individualized system of belief without consistency or clear doctrine? 

Maybe the Gnostics simply needed an inspiring leader, or a true successor to Jesus, in the way orthodox Christians had with Peter. 

It’s hard for me to imagine that a sect of Christianity like Gnosticism, which allowed so much personal autonomy, self-knowledge, and freedom of belief, simply disintegrated because it was viewed as heretical. Although perhaps the political force of the orthodox church was too much to handle. 

Regardless, Pagels does not go into these types of issues about Gnosticism nearly enough. 

I also wanted to hear more about how people who claim to be so self-knowing are also not overly self-righteous, which could have been naturally divisive for entrants to the faith. As in, “You are not self-knowing enough to be one of us Gnostics.” 

I’m not sure if that was the case, but it would have been helpful if Pagels had given a more comprehensive picture. 

The Gnostics have shaken my Christian foundation 

In many ways, it feels like my religion lied to me. They may not have been overtly deceptive, but omitting material facts is just as bad. Ask any lawyer. 

I never learned about the Gnostics. My religious family never told me about them (because they were probably never taught either). Meanwhile, the historic orthodox church doctrine continues, as designed and organized by the hierarchical structures that govern it. Heretics and anyone asking critical questions be damned. 

The Gnostic Gospels left me wanting more. A Gnostic experience of self-knowledge, if you will. A better understanding of how Gnostics can encounter Christ on a spiritual level instead of through the literal interpretations of the resurrection. 

It’s how I have always thought of religion. It should be a personal, spiritual experience. 

Or as Dostoyevsky describes it in The Brothers Karamazov through his character Ivan, it’s about “choosing the truth of one’s own conscience over material well-being, social approval, and religious certainty.” 

In many ways, the orthodox church seduces people from the truth of their freedom, from that personal religious quest. Of course, there are many benefits too, but in a world fraught with uncertainty and doubt, the Gnostic emphasis on personal enlightenment offers a beacon of hope and solace. It invites us to embark on a journey of faith that is uniquely our own. 

If Pagels book did anything, it illustrated how modern Christianity could reckon with its checkered past to create a more enlightened and individualized future by embracing at least some elements of Gnosticism.  

Perhaps if we incorporated more religious self-discovery and less institutional orthodoxy, more people would accept religion as an essential part of their lives.