Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-02-2008, 02:35 PM

The Gospel According To Pagels: Reconsiderations

Quote:

. . .

The argument that "The Gnostic Gospels" mounts alongside its helpful description, however, depends upon an anachronism. In discussing each of her topics, Ms. Pagels attempts to make the case that the motivation for the Catholic position was to give the clergy greater power, while the Gnostics nobly pursued their quest of knowledge into historical oblivion, until the Nag Hammadi collection surfaced again after 1,500 years. Ms. Pagels sees her essay as a contribution to the relationship between religion and politics, but for the most part, she leaves out the real power in the whole equation of the religious history of the period: the Roman Empire.

Because successive emperors promoted or permitted the persecution of "atheists" — people such as Christians who refused to acknowledge the gods of Rome and the divinity of the emperor — both Catholics and Gnostics were martyred, paying for their convictions with torture and even death. Although the great majority from both sides managed to find an accommodation with their Roman masters, enough of them refused to bend to the will of their persecutors that Catholics and Gnostics alike had to contend with the question of how much their adherents should put themselves in harm's way for their beliefs.

Under the circumstances of Roman rule, it is unconvincing, misleading, and inaccurate to portray Catholics as somehow exercising power over Gnostics in the period prior to the fourth century. After Constantine's conversion, of course, Rome's might did back Catholic Christianity in military and financial, as well as political, terms. But it is anachronistic to describe the two groups' relationship prior to that as a power inequality. Both of them were oppressed. They did argue with one another, and amongst themselves; that was the nature of theological debate in earliest Christianity, and in the ancient Mediterranean world as a whole. Moreover, the lines of demarcation and debate were fluid: Many Catholics claimed access to true gnosis, while Gnostics claimed their truth was universal. In fact, "Catholic" and "Gnostic," though convenient terms for grouping differing communities in retrospect, did not at the time represent mutually exclusive orientations, as Ms. Pagels herself admits.

. . .

Roger Pearse · 04-03-2008, 07:46 AM

The idea that gnostics were persecuted would appear to be refuted by the existence of Tertullian's Scorpiace, in which they are encouraging Christians to sacrifice in order to avoid persecution.

Marcionites did refuse to sacrifice, I believe, although I have no reference. It is not easy to imagine why others would.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gstafleu · 04-03-2008, 09:41 AM

I don't get it. After Constantine, Catholic power and Roman power were identical. The Catholics/Romans then suppressed any non-Catholic Christianity, including the gnostics. Isn't that what Pagels argues (it's been a while since I read the book)? Whether Catholic persecution of gnostics before Constantine is a real issue, depends on the Catholics' relative power before Constantine. Did Constantine effect an all-of-a-sudden sea-change, or did he pick what already was a winner?

Gerard Stafleu

Toto · 04-03-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I don't get it. After Constantine, Catholic power and Roman power were identical. The Catholics/Romans then suppressed any non-Catholic Christianity, including the gnostics. Isn't that what Pagels argues (it's been a while since I read the book)? Whether Catholic persecution of gnostics before Constantine is a real issue, depends on the Catholics' relative power before Constantine. Did Constantine effect an all-of-a-sudden sea-change, or did he pick what already was a winner?

Gerard Stafleu

Good question. I think Constantine picked what what likely to form the most useful ideology for an empire, which meant that it had already had some success before that time in creating a coherent organization. The proto-orthodox could not use state power against their rivals, but they could use all of the other social tools that are used to enforce group norms.

mens_sana · 04-03-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think Constantine picked what what likely to form the most useful ideology for an empire, which meant that it had already had some success before that time in creating a coherent organization. The proto-orthodox could not use state power against their rivals, but they could use all of the other social tools that are used to enforce group norms.

Constantine did not pick a unified "ideology." After all, he was in the Arian branch of the church. He had no idea what theological battles were coming. What he picked was the institution of the monarchical episcopacy. One faith, one baptism, one emperor — appealed to him and promised a unified empire.

Clivedurdle · 04-03-2008, 02:07 PM

Sounds again like too much emphasis on persecution - this was only coming down on criminal and treacherous behaviour - an association of fire fighters was persecuted because associations were banned. Slaves had a far harder time than the Roman equivalent of parking tickets a few religious nutters got!

judge · 04-05-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I don't get it. After Constantine, Catholic power and Roman power were identical. The Catholics/Romans then suppressed any non-Catholic Christianity,

However christianity existed outside the Roman Empire as well as inside it. So the Catholics/Romans weren't able to suppress forms of christianity everywhere.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2008, 07:46 AM	#2
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	The idea that gnostics were persecuted would appear to be refuted by the existence of Tertullian's Scorpiace, in which they are encouraging Christians to sacrifice in order to avoid persecution. Marcionites did refuse to sacrifice, I believe, although I have no reference. It is not easy to imagine why others would. All the best, Roger Pearse

04-03-2008, 09:41 AM	#3
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	I don't get it. After Constantine, Catholic power and Roman power were identical. The Catholics/Romans then suppressed any non-Catholic Christianity, including the gnostics. Isn't that what Pagels argues (it's been a while since I read the book)? Whether Catholic persecution of gnostics before Constantine is a real issue, depends on the Catholics' relative power before Constantine. Did Constantine effect an all-of-a-sudden sea-change, or did he pick what already was a winner? Gerard Stafleu

04-03-2008, 02:07 PM	#6
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Sounds again like too much emphasis on persecution - this was only coming down on criminal and treacherous behaviour - an association of fire fighters was persecuted because associations were banned. Slaves had a far harder time than the Roman equivalent of parking tickets a few religious nutters got!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.