Nathan E. Lewis

Elaine Pagels has devoted much of her time to Irenaeus, that fiery Christian theologian, circa 125-202. He published “Against Heresies,” a strong apologetic against Gnostics. Clearly Pagels is trying to make room for Gnostics in the Church. Her book, “Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas,” would be more appropriately titled, “Beyond Belief: Why I Reject Irenaeus as Founder of the Church.”

Indeed, Pagel presents Irenaeus as this giant of a man, who single-handedly strong-armed the diverse Christian community of the second century. Undoubtedly, Irenaeus, was and is influential, but he had no papal or imperial powers. If he was persuasive, he was so among scores of peers as influential as himself. Pagel writes, “It was Irenaeus, so far as we can tell who became the principle architect of what we call the four gospel canon.” (110).
One of Pagel’s primary problems with Irenaeus is his clearly defined method of interpretation of scripture. Pagel records that Irenaeus insisted on using clear texts of the Bible to interpret less clear texts. Pagel seems to have a problem with this hermenuetic. Why would anyone develop a method of using the less clear texts to interpret the clear ones? Why would anyone attempt to interpret the less clear by extrapulating them from their context, including the clearer texts? Principially, what is wrong with Irenaeus’ hermenuetic?
Method of interpretation is a huge issue. How does anyone interpret any text? That is a good question. Irenaeus answered by supplying his method of interpretion. It appears as if Pagels prefers the methods of another man, Valentinus, the author of the “Gospel of Truth.” The reader of “Beyond Belief,” will discover that Pagels never spells out the hermenuetic of Valentinus. She does supply a few examples, but she never nails the method down in a concise statement so that we can compare it with Irenaeus. Pagels tells us what Valentinus included in his “Gospel of Truth” confusing what he wrote with his method of interpretation (119ff). Pagels does report Irenaeus’ criticism of Valentinus’ method of interpretation. She writes, “So, he says, when Valentinus and his disciples opened John’s gospel and wanted to understand what ‘word’ means, they reflected on how ‘word’ functions in human experience. What this means, he says, is that they mistook their own projections for theology, so that they found in the Scriptures only what they invented, ‘each one seeking to validate his own experience.’” (145). It would be helpful if Pagels, who is most capable to do so, would tell us what methods of interpretation Valentinus used.
Pagels tells us that the author of the “Gospel of Philip” was a “Valentinian teacher.” (130). As she discusses how the “Gospel of Philip” presents the virgin birth of Jesus and his resurrection, we receive a hint to the method of interpretation used by this school. Pagel writes, “Many believers, indeed, continue to take the virgin birth literally, as if Mary conceived apart from Joseph; ’some say that Mary conceived through the holy spirit,’ but, Philip says, ‘they are in error.’” (131). She continues to summarize the author’s interpretation of the virgin birth as every person’s sprititual rebirth. The Virgin Mary is the holy spirit through which any individual may be born again.
Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, this author, summarized by Pagels interprets, “Such people, he continues, are also wrong about the resurrection, since they take this, too, as if it could be only a unique event in which Christ died and rose bodily from the grave. Philip suggests instead that Jesus’ resurrection, like his virgin birth, is not only something that occurred in the past but is a paradigm of what happens to each person who undergoes spiritual transformation.” (132). Pagels attempts to reconcile Philip’s interpretation to that of Paul in his letters to the Churches at Galatia and Corinth. However, the big difference is that Paul believed that Jesus actually was raised from the dead, bodily. Then and only then does he teach about resurrection and transformation for the rest of humanity.
Rather than practicing methods of interpretation on religious texts like the New Testament and the Nag Hammadi, what if we were to practice on Pagels’ writing? Let’s take a paragraph of Pagels’ writing and interpret it according to Irenaeus’ methods and then by Philip’s methods. I have chosen a moving paragraph from Pagels’ “Beyond Belief.” This paragraph has moved me to tears and to prayer for God’s comfort and peace to rest upon Elaine Pagels and her family. Her writing has moved me to view her as a real person, as a person who has suffered the common curse. Her paragraph reminds me that she and her son and every human being is highly valued. No matter what condition, no matter how severe the suffering, every individual is made in the image of God and precious to God and to us. Please remember this expression of my personal interpretation of her paragraph as I apply Irenaeus’ methods and Philip’s methods to it.
Here is the paragraph:
“The following day, a team of doctors urged us to authorize a lung biopsy, a painful and invasive procedure. How could this help? It couln’t, they explained; but the procedure would let them see how far the disease had progressed. Mark has already exhausted by the previous day’s ordeal. Holding him, I felt that if more masked strangers poked needles into him in an operating room, he might lose heart - literally- and die. We refused the biopsy, gathered Mark’s blanket, clothes, and Peter Rabbit, and carried him home.” (4).
Students of Irenaeus’ method of interpretation would read this paragraph and believe it to be a clear and literal reference to Elaine Pagel’s son Mark, who died as a child. They would read Pagels’ entire chapter one to gain the immediate context for this paragraph and conclude that Pagels is truly writing autobiographicly. They would interpret the paragraph to be a literal, accurate account of Elaine’s family experience. The doctors are doctors the medical procedures are medical procedures, the needles are needles. Mark’s blanket is his blanket. “Home” is the domicile of Elaine Pagels.
The students of Philip’s method of interpretation would read this paragraph and conclude that it describes the spiritual struggle raging within every person. The team of doctors represent those external influences that tell us what we already know to be true within ourselves. They are emblematic of religious systems/dogmas that preach total depravity of humanity. They are external forces that render us spiritually exhausted. Elaine, herself, is the Mother figure. She is the divine feminine who stands against the masculine invaders. She is love, protection, and comfort personified. Mark’s blanket symbolizes comfort. His “clothes” symbolize divine provision. “Peter Rabbit” is the Holy Scriptures (if Philip can interpret the Virgin Mary to be the holy spirit….) While there is considerable debate over Peter Rabbit being a stuffed toy or a book, the majority of Philip’s students throughout the years have favored Peter Rabbit, the book. The main reason for this is the discovery made by one of Pagels’ students, who broke into her office to steal the key to a final examination. While she was rummaging, she discovered Pagels’ diaries and began to read them. Hearing footsteps in the hallway, she ripped out several pages, tearing away fragments, including these words: “In light of his [ ] I would wash his blanket once [ ] He loved his [ ] and [ ] reading late into the [ ] especially when his congestion [ ]….These diary fragments have become known as “Q” and are the primary texts for interpreting Peter Rabbit to be the book rather than the stuffed toy.
The final words of the paragraph, “carried him home,” do not refer to Pagels’ house, but speak of any person’s arrival to Self, to inner contemplation. Home is the location where one ceases to think and enters “luminous epinoia.” As “The Secret Book of John” teaches, “luminous epinoia,” is a person’s creative consciousness, one’s true home.
I would never dream of interpreting Pagel’s paragraph in such an insensitive manner. Irenaeus’ method protects us from hurting each other by ripping words from context so that the original meaning and experience is discarded and replaced by the reader’s fantasies and experience. Pagels’ paragraph can not mean whatever I or you wish it to mean. Pagels’ paragraph has one meaning and one only: Her son, Mark, was critically ill. There was nothing the doctors could do for him and so Pagel, like any loving mother, picked up her beloved son and brought him home, to his own bed to rest.